Agenda item

Cabinet considered the Scrutiny Report on Bus and Community Transport provision. The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board introduced the report and highlighted some findings from the Scrutiny Task Group:

·         The headlines coming out of the Scrutiny were for the next twenty years rather than the next two years

·         People's concerns were about unreliability and bus stops not being covered, lack of information and long waits. Some people had said they did not bother complaining any more as the service was so bad

·         Bus usage was actually higher than in 1991 but the network was 25% smaller

·         The budget had highlighted links between growth of the economy and efficient transport so public transport and congestion were important issues

·         It was not possible to meet everyone's travel needs with bus times so community transport was important but that suffered from a lack of centralisation and money

·         The Task Group was clear that plans should be considered for the next 20 years to enable a sustainable transport network. The County Council needed to take action to incentivise bus operators to increase the numbers of users and the size of the network which would help to support growth of the economy.

In the ensuing discussion the following points were made:

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways thanked the Task Group for a constructive and sensible report and agreed a long term review of sustainable transport was needed. He accepted most of the comments. The Council could not allow bus companies to continually cut services and expect the Council to fill the gap. He felt that buses were the alternative to cars and would help with easing congestion

·         The Cabinet Member agreed that the network and usage needed to be increased and more people would use the service if it was punctual and reliable. A solid, reliable service was required eg for workers and also the elderly as a way to fight against isolation. Ideas were required and invited about how to increase bus usage

·         The Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure agreed the Task Group had done a first class job. He mentioned that some Councillors had been generous and had used their divisional funds to help subsidise bus routes but that could only be a short term measure. He felt that real time information boards and improved bus stops were a good idea but they were expensive measures that Parish Councils could be expected to help with. He suggested that congestion problems and late buses could be helped by revising the parking arrangements along certain main routes. Out of the £20 million transport budget a large proportion was spent on necessary school and SEND transport

·         The Cabinet member for Adult Services felt that more should be done to consider people with Learning Disabilities; as the Learning Disability Partnership Board Members commented during Public Participation, they did not get much say when services were cut. He felt the Task Group had backed away from the idea of dealing with concessionary fares but had not offered alternative solutions, apart from to lobby MPs. The cost of the Government contribution for bus passes did not cover the cost of the fare and from speaking to older people in his division the feeling was that they would pay an extra £1 on top of the fare to protect routes. He believed that updating bus shelters would lead to increased usage

·         The Scrutiny Chairman responded that other areas had real time information and it was necessary to improve services and ensure they were reliable in order to increase bus usage. Investment by the Council and its Partners was necessary. The issue of concessionary fares not covering the cost of the journey was a national issue and cross-party support was needed to approach MPs

·         In Malvern the use of Divisional Funds had led to a successful Community transport bus

·         It was suggested that Section 106 monies from developers should be used for buses, and planning departments should be encouraged to request it

·         Urban and rural transport was very different. If only 1 or 2 people needed to use a bus in a particular village the bus would not be sustainable. Community transport was vital and was not just an add-on to the bus system. It was also pointed out that public buses used for the school run were not a practical or attractive option for other users. It was proposed that the Council could be more helpful in bringing together bus information from the different companies

·         The Cabinet Member was urged to ask the bus companies what they were prepared to do to address some of the suggestions made in the report

·         One member from outside the Cabinet had a query about an area which had used Section 106 money for a bus service and was then told the service may still be cut. Any money put aside needed to be managed properly

·          A good bus service was a way of improving economic prosperity, as well as helping with health and well-being

·         The Cabinet Chairman agreed the Council was committed to sustainable transport; investment was happening and he looked forward to the full review.

RESOLVED that Cabinet:

(a)  received the Scrutiny Report on Bus and Community Transport Provision, together with the response from the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways; and

(b)  noted the Scrutiny Report's findings and recommendation and adopts the response of the Cabinet Member with Responsibility as the way forward.