Cumbrian bus discussion

[backontrack]

Reays is dropping Cockermouth-Maryport (the 58), Cockermouth's town service (59), and Maryport-Silloth-Skinburness (60).

A Cockermouth trader claims the loss of a town centre bus service will devastate the high street and community.

Bus company Reays combined the number 59 Cockermouth town bus with the number 58 Maryport to Cockermouth service and the number 60 Silloth to Maryport route in a bid to increase viability.

It currently runs every day except Sundays.

However, the situation has not improved and this week Reays confirmed that all three services would be removed from their timetables from Saturday, January 28.

Jonty Chippendale, owner of The Toy Shop in Main Street, said: “It damages the high street and the community because people can’t get out to meet up with friends. It’s ridiculous.

“It once again is going to discriminate against people who don’t have access to a car.

“We get regular customers from all over Cockermouth using the bus.

“I’m just disappointed that it’s yet another blow to rural communities that are disadvantaged in a way that cities are not.”

Mr Chippendale also pointed out that users of the under-threat cottage hospital in Maryport could be expected to travel to Cockermouth, but with no bus service to get them there.

A Reays spokesman said: “Both the 60 and the 58 services used to be run by Stagecoach, with a subsidy from Cumbria County Council.

“After Stagecoach dropped the routes, we took them both on but purely on a commercial basis, without any subsidy from the county council.

“Despite our best efforts, the routes have continued to attract insufficient passengers.

“We have changed the routes and timetables several times at different stages and we have also combined the services with another in a bid to lower costs and make the routes viable.

“This resulted in the same bus travelling from Silloth to Maryport as the 60, then changing to the 58 between Maryport and Cockermouth before becoming the 59 Cockermouth town service.”

Don't forget that Reays have done this before. In 2014, they ditched routes 105 and 106, which connected Penrith, Eamont Bridge, Clifton, Lowther, Shap, Orton, Old Tebay, Tebay, Grayrigg and Kendal, after fewer than 72 hours of operation!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

What was the story with the 105/106? I noticed it's sudden disappearance, the slightly caustic comments (without proper explanation) on the Cumbria CC website and the abysmal failure of Cumbria CC to step in and provide a replacement of any sort for months and then only a token effort.

I see the 564 (correction it was the 563) Penrith - Appleby - Kirkby Stephen service disappeared before Christmas, again with no replacement but talk of some community dial-a-bus in a few months time, possibly, perhaps, whenever.

Glad I don't live in any of the communities on the route.

Time for all those reliant on public transport to move into town centres, not towns but the actual centres, because there is no future for buses in this country outside the main cities.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The onus is on Cumbria CC to provide a socially necessary service, not a commercial operator. If a service is (genuinely) not commercially viable then there should be not criticism of an operator for withdrawing a service, rather there should be criticism of Cumbria CC for failing to meet their statutory responsibilities.

Cumbria CC needs to determine whether there is a social need for a service to any unserved area, determine how that need is best met, and then secure the resources necessary to pay for the meeting of that identified need.

Simply assuming that the only bus services to be provided are those which an operator can provide commercially is an abdication of their responsibilities.

Imagine schools operating only where they are 'commercially viable'. Or hospitals, clinics, fire stations, ambulances, police and the rest. Public transport is a social service as well as a commercial activity.

 

[backontrack]

I see the 564 Penrith - Appleby - Kirkby Stephen service disappeared before Christmas, again with no replacement but talk of some community dial-a-bus in a few months time, possibly, perhaps, whenever.

I think that the 563 (not 564), linking those communities, still runs, though I could be wrong.

In any case, I think that the blame comes down to cuts imposed by the Tory Government.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The onus is on Cumbria CC to provide a socially necessary service, not a commercial operator. If a service is (genuinely) not commercially viable then there should be not criticism of an operator for withdrawing a service, rather there should be criticism of Cumbria CC for failing to meet their statutory responsibilities.



Imagine schools operating only where they are 'commercially viable'. Or hospitals, clinics, fire stations, ambulances, police and the rest. Public transport is a social service as well as a commercial activity.

That is the problem. Public transport IS NOT a statutory responsibility. They do not have to do it, and in Darlington, Hartlepool or Southend, none of these support local bus services except where developers s.106 funding is employed.

Areas such as education, roads or housing do have absolute responsibilities, whereas other areas where statute is looser (e.g. libraries) can be interpreted more liberally.

Fact is that the whole austerity, local devolution and big society rubbish created by Steve Hilton and promulgated by Cameron and Osborne was just a cover for a hollowing out of the state's responsibilities and reducing taxation for nothing more than ideological reasons - i.e. reduce the central grant, make council tax rises more disadvantageous than any benefit derived, and make councils choose where the cuts will come (or try to get some baby boomers run the local library or community minibus instead).

Rant over (drops mike)

 

[ARN556B]

That is the problem. Public transport IS NOT a statutory responsibility. They do not have to do it, and in Darlington, Hartlepool or Southend, none of these support local bus services except where developers s.106 funding is employed.

Areas such as education, roads or housing do have absolute responsibilities, whereas other areas where statute is looser (e.g. libraries) can be interpreted more liberally.

Fact is that the whole austerity, local devolution and big society rubbish created by Steve Hilton and promulgated by Cameron and Osborne was just a cover for a hollowing out of the state's responsibilities and reducing taxation for nothing more than ideological reasons - i.e. reduce the central grant, make council tax rises more disadvantageous than any benefit derived, and make councils choose where the cuts will come (or try to get some baby boomers run the local library or community minibus instead).

Rant over (drops mike)

A very concise description of a very cynical government. In Lancashire a number of supported bus services have been withdrawn; currently, ongoing cuts have led to the sale of six library buildings whom LCC were unable to support financially and who were unable to enlist volunteers to run the library services at the affected locations. Three museums are also to be closed. Dreadful state vandalism.

 

[robertclark125]

I don't want to be sounding like i'm supporting the government, but I think one question that has to be asked is, why not enough people are using the service? Is it the thinly spread population? Is it the fares? Is it the route the service takes? I think that when Reays took this on, it was a case of "Use it or lose it".

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't want to be sounding like i'm supporting the government, but I think one question that has to be asked is, why not enough people are using the service? Is it the thinly spread population? Is it the fares? Is it the route the service takes? I think that when Reays took this on, it was a case of "Use it or lose it".

Part of the issue is that ENCTS reimbursement (58% in Cumbria) - the idea that bus operators would be "no better, no worse" off is sadly a fallacy.

It is a relatively sparse corridor but that can be said of many parts of the country. For example, the Yorkshire Dales has very, very few services that could be classed as commercial and never have been. That doesn't mean that there isn't genuine need but that it will never be commercially sustainable.

The idea of deregulation was that the operators would operate the sustainable stuff but that the local authorities would have the money to support those unprofitable routes. That isn't the case.

Oh, and before we have the usual calls for re-regulation and cross-subsidy, the issue is the underfunding of public bus services and that is as true in any commercial operating structure.

 

[the101]

Where Stagecoach and subsidy in the past are mentioned, does anyone know exactly what happened there?

If the subsidy was withdrawn by the council and Reays took the services on commercially then that is one thing, and the idiot who has dropped 'discrimination' into things should be thanking Reays for allowing the routes to be continued longer than they would have. Or did Reays come along and register them commercially when Stagecoach was still receiving subsidy? It's a different thing entirely if so.

 

[robertclark125]

I think Cumbria CC decided to withdraw the subsidy, Stagecoach thus deemed the services to be unviable. Reays registered replacement services, to start the day after the Stagecoach services finished. That's the situation, as I understand it.

It must be mentioned though, that Reays were planning to withdraw the 58/9/60 back in February 2016, but a petition forced them into changing their minds. I'll ask the question again, which Reays must also be asking; where are those who signed the petition?

 

[backontrack]

It must be mentioned though, that Reays were planning to withdraw the 58/9/60 back in February 2016, but a petition forced them into changing their minds. I'll ask the question again, which Reays must also be asking; where are those who signed the petition?

That petition was only about the 60. There had been no plans to drop the 58 or 59.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I think that the 563, linking those communities, still runs, though I could be wrong.

In any case, I think that the blame comes down to cuts imposed by the Tory Government.

No, my mistake, it was the 563 withdrawn just before Christmas.

Not simply government 'cuts', but how those cuts are distributed, by the local council, across the various services that they provide. Locally my council chose to protect certain services (education, social services), which are the big spending departments anyway, meaning that the necessary cuts fell dis-proportionately on the remaining services, which are relatively small spenders, including subsidised bus services.

The answer ultimately lies on people going out there and using the buses that remain. Within Cumbria, look at the numbers using buses in the National Park during the summer. But how many of those are locals and how many tourists? Similarly how many pay cash and how many are ENCTS?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

A very concise description of a very cynical government. In Lancashire a number of supported bus services have been withdrawn; currently, ongoing cuts have led to the sale of six library buildings whom LCC were unable to support financially and who were unable to enlist volunteers to run the library services at the affected locations. Three museums are also to be closed. Dreadful state vandalism.

More worryingly, as happened in Cumbria, operators took on previously supported services on a commercial basis, are now reviewing those services, and are choosing to withdraw those services. It is the bus operator that gets it in the neck, rather than the council. Smart move by the council, not so smart by the operators!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I don't want to be sounding like i'm supporting the government, but I think one question that has to be asked is, why not enough people are using the service? Is it the thinly spread population? Is it the fares? Is it the route the service takes? I think that when Reays took this on, it was a case of "Use it or lose it".

The 58 / 60 runs hourly over part of the route (Workington - Maryport) but then less frequently over the remainder - so 5 journeys per day Maryport - Cockermouth and 3 per day on the Cockermouth town service.

That is simply not attractive to anyone but the desperate with no alternative.

Similarly the 563 was down to a one bus operation with four round trips M-F and two on a Saturday. Possibly OK for school / college kids going to Penrith, but not much use to anyone else.

All better than nothing though!

 

[ivanhoe]

Part of the issue is that ENCTS reimbursement (58% in Cumbria) - the idea that bus operators would be "no better, no worse" off is sadly a fallacy.

It is a relatively sparse corridor but that can be said of many parts of the country. For example, the Yorkshire Dales has very, very few services that could be classed as commercial and never have been. That doesn't mean that there isn't genuine need but that it will never be commercially sustainable.

The idea of deregulation was that the operators would operate the sustainable stuff but that the local authorities would have the money to support those unprofitable routes. That isn't the case.

Oh, and before we have the usual calls for re-regulation and cross-subsidy, the issue is the underfunding of public bus services and that is as true in any commercial operating structure.

I'm not sure that ENCTS is the issue here. How many of the ENCTS passengers would be on the bus if they had to pay the full fare? 33% I don't really know to be honest. The main issue is enticing new passengers onto the bus, particularly in areas such as Cumbria and other national parks. Combined car park and bus tickets might be useful but we then have the situation where Councils would not wish to see their car park income diluted. Either way, it requires partnership, good looking buses with wifi etc. We are a funny lot the British. Many people still look on getting the bus as a sign of weakness. If more of us did it, then we could run more commercial services with less but some subsidy. Its in the hands of Government but buses appear to be less of a vote winner than car ownership and trains.

 

[randyrippley]

I don't want to be sounding like i'm supporting the government, but I think one question that has to be asked is, why not enough people are using the service? Is it the thinly spread population? Is it the fares? Is it the route the service takes? I think that when Reays took this on, it was a case of "Use it or lose it".

Buses aren't used much in Cumbria because of the kind of people who are moving there: second homers and rich retirees who quite simply wouldn't be seen dead in a bus. The houses they don't buy end up as holiday homes.
The percentage of real locals living in Cumbria is declining: no jobs, no affordable homes. Cumbria is just becoming a playground for the retired and rich. Who don't use public transport.

 

[johnnychips]

When I was in Cumbria in November, Reays seemed to be involved in a bus war with Stagecoach on the Whitehaven to Egremont/Thornhill route - the Reays buses seemed to leave five minutes before the Stagecoach, and in reply Stagecoach seemed to have introduced an X6 which presumably avoided the detours round Whitehaven suburbs.

On the out-of-date bus map, the area of Copeland south and east of Egremont seemed denuded of anything but a mysterious '14' service which seemed to be an on-demand offering of which I could find no trace. However, on a lamp post in Egremont, Reays were offering a service four times a day to Seascale which I presume they were trying commercially.

 

[daodao]

More worryingly, as happened in Cumbria, operators took on previously supported services on a commercial basis, are now reviewing those services, and are choosing to withdraw those services. It is the bus operator that gets it in the neck, rather than the council. Smart move by the council, not so smart by the operators!

A number of councils have ceased to provide any subsidies for bus services. I understand that these include Cumbria, Lancashire and Stoke-on-Trent. Others, e.g. Shropshire and North Yorkshire, have withdrawn (nearly) all subsidies for buses outside 0700-1900 Mon-Sat.

Therefore, if no operator can run the route commercially, there will be no service in these areas. There are currently no Sunday buses in Shropshire other than a commercial Arriva service from Oswestry to Wrexham.

 

[backontrack]

No, my mistake, it was the 563 withdrawn just before Christmas.

The 563? That's surprising. It seems that all the buses are either in the Lakes, or at Carlisle or Barrow.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not sure that ENCTS is the issue here. How many of the ENCTS passengers would be on the bus if they had to pay the full fare?

ENCTS is the issue, though.

We are in a situation where reimbursing bus operators through ENCTS is a statutory responsibility*, but providing socially necessary but uncommercial bus services is not a statutory responsibility.

*It's slightly more complicated than that, but ENCTS reimbursement is something that local councils are obliged to pay to bus operators, who can appeal to the Secretary of State if councils refuse or pay too little.

Councils do not have to pay for socially necessary bus services, they simply have to "consider it", but they do have to reimburse bus operators for ENCTS pass usage. Money is finite, and the ENCTS reimbursement money is paid by DCLG as part of the Formula Grant; no money comes from DfT for ENCTS reimbursement. The Formula Grant is the money the council get for all non-statutory services.

In short, the money that should be available to pay for socially necessary bus services is being spent on OAPs travelling for free on commercially sustainable routes. There is no town bus in Cockermouth or Maryport anymore because of all the twirlies on the 555 and X5 having a day out in Keswick n the council's shilling.

 

[ivanhoe]

ENCTS is the issue, though.

We are in a situation where reimbursing bus operators through ENCTS is a statutory responsibility*, but providing socially necessary but uncommercial bus services is not a statutory responsibility.

*It's slightly more complicated than that, but ENCTS reimbursement is something that local councils are obliged to pay to bus operators, who can appeal to the Secretary of State if councils refuse or pay too little.

Councils do not have to pay for socially necessary bus services, they simply have to "consider it", but they do have to reimburse bus operators for ENCTS pass usage. Money is finite, and the ENCTS reimbursement money is paid by DCLG as part of the Formula Grant; no money comes from DfT for ENCTS reimbursement. The Formula Grant is the money the council get for all non-statutory services.

In short, the money that should be available to pay for socially necessary bus services is being spent on OAPs travelling for free on commercially sustainable routes. There is no town bus in Cockermouth or Maryport anymore because of all the twirlies on the 555 and X5 having a day out in Keswick n the council's shilling.

We have had disagreements before Troll on this issue. You have your views and I have mine. Leave it at that as I am not biting.

 

[randyrippley]

In short, the money that should be available to pay for socially necessary bus services is being spent on OAPs travelling for free on commercially sustainable routes. There is no town bus in Cockermouth or Maryport anymore because of all the twirlies on the 555 and X5 having a day out in Keswick n the council's shilling.

Worse than that......go to Lancaster Bus Station around 9.30 in the morning, or one of the bus stops along Morecambe Prom (for the 755) and listen to the OAPs competing to see how far they were going to get today......
Conversations along the line of "I'm going to Kendal" "Huh I'm going to Maryport" "Thats nothing, I'm going to Carlisle" "Ever tried doing Stranraer?".............
Its a serious competitive event, seeing how much of a free ride they can cram into a day. Several times a week for some of them.
Silly question, but as they're starting around ten miles into Lancashire with the rest of the trip in Cumbria, which council pays?
But now you know how Stagecoach paid for that new fleet for the 555.......

 

[ivanhoe]

Worse than that......go to Lancaster Bus Station around 9.30 in the morning, or one of the bus stops along Morecambe Prom (for the 755) and listen to the OAPs competing to see how far they were going to get today......
Conversations along the line of "I'm going to Kendal" "Huh I'm going to Maryport" "Thats nothing, I'm going to Carlisle" "Ever tried doing Stranraer?".............
Its a serious competitive event, seeing how much of a free ride they can cram into a day. Several times a week for some of them.
Silly question, but as they're starting around ten miles into Lancashire with the rest of the trip in Cumbria, which council pays?
But now you know how Stagecoach paid for that new fleet for the 555.......

Although two major bus operators encourage you to use it:

https://www.arrivabus.co.uk/travel-help-and-accessibility/senior-travel/
https://trentbarton.co.uk/fares-and-tickets/concessionary-pass

I think you'll find that both of those companies also buy new fleets of buses. Government introduced the legislation and have chosen not to fund the scheme properly. Now have a go at May et al by all means, if you dare! She'd probably appreciate something to take her mind off Brexit

 

[Tetchytyke]

Government introduced the legislation and have chosen not to fund the scheme properly.

Bingo.

I'm not saying we should abolish ENCTS. But the simple fact of the matter is that the council don't have an endless pot of money, they have to reimburse for use ENCTS but they don't have to pay for subsidised bus services. So the money that could have been spent subsidising socially necessary bus services is, instead, being spent on bus services that successfully operate commercially.

Government clearly aren't going to fund ENCTS properly- they haven't done ever since the scheme started- so we are where we are. The people of rural Cumbria don't get buses because all the cash went on giving OAPs a free day out in the Lakes. The blame for that rests with Government and the shambles that is funding for the ENCTS scheme, but Cumbria County Council and Reays cop the flack instead.

 

[mbonwick]

But now you know how Stagecoach paid for that new fleet for the 555.......

Yes, through all the tourists in summer....

ENCTS doesn't make the operator any real profit, hence why it is possible for services to be relatively full of concessionary passengers and still end up cancelled.

 

[oldman]

The people of rural Cumbria don't get buses because all the cash went on giving OAPs a free day out in the Lakes.

Cumbria don't fund bus routes because they don't have to. Why do you think that they would put any money saved from ending the concession scheme into subsidising marginal routes?

If they did they would probably find that a lot of commercial routes were no longer commercial without the concession revenue, so the marginal routes would be at the end of the queue for subsidy.

 

[neilmc]

Buses aren't used much in Cumbria because of the kind of people who are moving there: second homers and rich retirees who quite simply wouldn't be seen dead in a bus. The houses they don't buy end up as holiday homes.
The percentage of real locals living in Cumbria is declining: no jobs, no affordable homes. Cumbria is just becoming a playground for the retired and rich. Who don't use public transport.

Guess I'm the exception then, as a retiree I can plan my forays into town around the weekly Tuesday bus, where I am often the youngest passenger and the only one who actually pays a fare.

There are actually plenty of jobs in Cumbria, just that they don't pay very well. Shops and pubs in Penrith always seem to be on the lookout for staff, the difficulty is that it's almost impossible to live in a village and work in a town in Cumbria without a reliable car. The fact that the 563, a four times a day service connecting Penrith to Appleby, two reasonable size towns by Cumbria standards, and apparently well-used, has gone belly-up with no imminent replacement illustrates this.

Penrith is now, to all intents and purposes, cut off from bus networks to the south and east as Kendal appears to be too far to warrant even a once daily service. However the railway station appears to do a good trade so some Cumbrians at least are using public transport, just not buses which all too often don't exist anyway.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If they did they would probably find that a lot of commercial routes were no longer commercial without the concession revenue

The ENCTS reimbursement rate is based on how many people would have travelled had the scheme not existed. So any route that is sustainable commercially with ENCTS revenue would also be sustainable commercially if OAPs had to pay a fare, like they did ten years ago.

My issue with ENCTS is that it is forcing councils to spend money they don't have for people who can afford to pay to ride for free on a bus that would run anyway. It sucks all the money out of the transport budget.

 

[backontrack]

Guess I'm the exception then, as a retiree I can plan my forays into town around the weekly Tuesday bus, where I am often the youngest passenger and the only one who actually pays a fare.

There are actually plenty of jobs in Cumbria, just that they don't pay very well. Shops and pubs in Penrith always seem to be on the lookout for staff, the difficulty is that it's almost impossible to live in a village and work in a town in Cumbria without a reliable car. The fact that the 563, a four times a day service connecting Penrith to Appleby, two reasonable size towns by Cumbria standards, and apparently well-used, has gone belly-up with no imminent replacement illustrates this.

Penrith is now, to all intents and purposes, cut off from bus networks to the south and east as Kendal appears to be too far to warrant even a once daily service. However the railway station appears to do a good trade so some Cumbrians at least are using public transport, just not buses which all too often don't exist anyway.

And I think that, if a new operator stepped in to cover the 563 (at least between Penrith and Appleby if not out to Kirkby Stephen), then they could do quite a good trade. Same with the 106.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The ENCTS reimbursement rate is based on how many people would have travelled had the scheme not existed. So any route that is sustainable commercially with ENCTS revenue would also be sustainable commercially if OAPs had to pay a fare, like they did ten years ago.

My issue with ENCTS is that it is forcing councils to spend money they don't have for people who can afford to pay to ride for free on a bus that would run anyway. It sucks all the money out of the transport budget.

Surely one benefit of the current system is that the money follows the passengers? Before, a council could subsidise a bus service carting fresh air around the county (and many did) whilst other buses are full and standing. Now an operator has a greater incentive to meet market need.

The issue is around where there is a social need but not a commercially viable need, and the level of ENCTS re-imbursement affects that. Were the re-imbursement rate £10 per passenger, I am sure the countryside would be full of buses, at £1 per passenger there are no buses.

What concerns me about the Cumbria situation (and is repeated elsewhere) is the 'get out' offered by section 19 / community bus permits, allowing the council to force ENCTS holders to pay for what was previously a 'free' service.

In the Crook area (the area between Kendal and Windermere), there used to be a weekly bus service (541) into Kendal, supported by the county council. That service was withdrawn and replaced by a 'community wheels' service, at the same frequency but on which everybody has to pay because it is not a 'registered service'. So the pensioner (technically ENCTS pass holder) pays their council tax, receives an unusable pass in return, and has to pay 'bus' fares to travel into town. Contrast this with the 'fellrunner' services east of Penrith which are community operated, with volunteer drivers, but which are registered and therefore ENCTS is valid.

Is there a case for re-introducing National Transport Tokens for people who are eligible for the ENCTS pass but who cannot generally use it due to the lack of bus services within miles of their home. That way the tokens could be used towards the cost of whatever alternative transport was available. A group of locals could even club together and pool their tokens creating a sizeable pot. I suppose the county council wouldn't like that because the maximum number of users would draw down their allowance.

The present system is a disincentive to good public transport provision. The worse the service is, the fewer ENCTS journeys made, the lower the cost to the council.