100 days into the 12th Labour government and what do we have? Riots (thanks to malicious social media postings), despair over the economic legacy of the previous Conservative government, grey belt planning, and the great bus revolution. Only the last item seems to have struck a positive note, except for some in the bus industry who would like things to remain as they are.
The problems with deregulation
Can a monopoly ever be a viable public service? We call it public transport, but are monopolies like buses and water public services? Water and local bus companies would probably say that they are and argue that they know best how to supply water and drainage or run a bus service.
The problem would appear to be the word ‘viable’. As far as water companies are concerned, it is perfectly reasonable for sewage to be dispersed into watercourses and be able to charge more for upgrading their infrastructure.
Bus companies feel it is perfectly reasonable to close routes and bus garages, alter services, and modify timetables to suit their operational requirements with just 42 days’ notice to the public. It’s difficult to see how the public would agree with that ‘viability’.
Bus companies have had a monopoly on their routes since the Road Traffic Act 1930, but then it was tempered with regulation. In 1985, even though trials in bus deregulation were inconclusive and possibly negative in outcome, the then transport secretary Nicholas Ridley felt that wholesale deregulation would be beneficial. London was excluded from this free-for-all because of its history in terms of the pirate bus wars of the 1920s and what ought to have been a warning to all was ignored.
The outcome of deregulation was reduced services leaving large areas of rural Britain devoid of bus services. Passenger numbers plummeted and have continued to fall until emergency measures such as the £2 flat fare, the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP), grants for zero-emission vehicles, ongoing subsidies on fuel, and stabilised passenger numbers. But for how long?
Stopping the decline of the bus networks
The new Labour government has offered bus franchising and removal of the constraints on municipal bus ownership as panaceas to stop the decline of bus networks and bus use. The Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) wants the bus prioritised in the government’s National Planning Policy Framework but is cautious about bus franchising. This is a sound gambit as a full double-decker bus can replace up to 75 single-occupancy cars.
Christian Wolmar, a commentator on Britain’s transport systems, points out that road building only returns £1.20 for each £1 invested in terms of economic benefits to the country.
Furthermore, as the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment and its predecessor, the Smeed Report pointed out, the inductive nature of road building only makes things worse. This is due to greater road space increasing traffic flows and eventually greater congestion than before. The CPT points out that investing in buses returns £4 for each £1 invested, so why are we still intending to add to the national debt burden with so little to show for it?
There is an inbuilt resistance by motorists prioritising buses over cars in urban areas. The complaints about the alleged losses that the Sturry Road Park & Ride in Canterbury is making in its first months since its reintroduction is a case in point. When interviewed, one motorist said she didn’t “want to be waiting” for a bus and preferred to park in central Canterbury. Instead of parking in an almost guaranteed car space at a fraction of the cost of parking in the city centre, this motorist would prefer to sit in traffic congestion and pay more for the privilege.
Should the government prioritise roads or buses?
Canterbury is a good example of where the bus gets short shrift. Motorists and some small businesses in the city have become attached to the belief that the car can be managed without difficulty. The Wincheap one-way system giving buses and cycling a priority has been termed an “absolute disaster” before it is even completed, yet there is no highway engineering solution that can resolve the problem.
This shortsightedness with public transport would not matter if the Sunak administration had survived, but government policy has changed under Labour. The new secretary of
state for transport Louise Haigh is publicly backing bus franchising and municipal bus ownership. It is reported that the Treasury is asking spending ministries to cut infrastructure spending by 10%. The Department of Transport must decide whether road-building schemes or bus improvement measures take priority.
With a pro-bus secretary of state who has set out five key priorities on transport – none of which involve road building – it looks ominous for Kent County Council’s (KCC) ‘Striking the Balance’transport plan, which contains many plans for road building but very little regarding buses and bus franchising.
Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister and secretary of state for housing and local government, is also making noises about devolution. She has written to KCC and Medway Borough Council asking for their views on devolution in Kent. KCC may find themselves in difficulty if all they have to offer is their failing BSIP and several expensive transport white elephant projects in Thanet and Dover as reasons for its survival.
Poor project management
Dover Fastrack will cost at least £34mn, is a year late and, thanks to Stagecoach, it may have an interim fleet of diesel, but not electric, buses. The Sandwich station platform extension cost £4.29mn and was completed ahead of the Open Golf Championship. This is the only time a 12-car train has been needed on the line.
Thanet Parkway railway station has cost at least £44mn (four times its original estimate) and has no connecting bus service or easy access for pedestrians or cyclists. It has attracted under 100,000 passengers in its first year, the equivalent of 274 journeys per day. To put that into perspective, nearby Ramsgate station had 1.4 million passengers in 2018–19.
All of these examples show poor project management and a lack of understanding about sustainability which is not something that will endear KCC to the new government. KCC seems to support urban travel by private car and has made life difficult for the Mayor of London’s Ulez scheme. KCC’s Leader Roger Gough called for a reversal of the Ulez expansion, calling it a “stark warning”.
The alternative to the motor vehicle economic policies of KCC – which have led to a growth in urban sprawl, pollution, and congestion in Kent – is a mayor-led regional Transport for the South East. This would tick all the boxes in Whitehall and might offer a break from the stifling effects of a failing transport status quo.
A simple solution
Transport for the South East is an existing body that covers the South East, consisting of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Berkshire, and Hampshire, but not Greater London which is under Transport for London. It appears to do very little except devise more road-building projects and grand designs that never see the light of day.
Currently, decision-making is too fragmented and decisions about buses are mostly taken by private companies. What is necessary to resolve this issue is to have a mayoral body, elect an assembly via proportional representation, and hand over all the strategic planning and transport responsibilities in the region – including those of National Highways – to this body. This would enable better integration of all transport planning, including rail (both passenger and freight), buses, highways, and local roads.
