Substantive bus service withdrawals post-Covid

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Maybe we need to look at this differently and not be scared of the motorist.

For example, there are now many households with 2, 3, 4 or even 5 cars, sometimes more cars than people.
A windfall tax or maybe increased road tax for households with 2 or more cars to make people think about the damage that they are doing to the environment and plough some of that money back into public transport.

Because at the minute I can only see a future where buses run a limited service from 7 to 7 Mon to Sat in urban areas only.

But then politicians won't want to upset the motorist.

This is totally silly in my opinion. I own 4 cars, and I can only drive 1 of them at a time. 3 of my cars are classics that are on the road maybe a handful of times a year. So because I use own 4 cars I should therefore be taxed more? I don’t think so. I still use public transport far more than I drive, probably about 90%-10%. I should add I very rarely (if ever) drive to areas where there’s good access to public transport.

Any tax should be increased to the building of NEW cars and scrapping of old ones, that is where the majority of the environmental damage is done and not how many cars people own.

The big issue is public transport is still too expensive for many, if it were a bit cheaper than I’m sure many more would use it. How you would achieve this without any issues just won’t happen though.

 

[asw22]

I should have said that there are many households now own 3+ cars, all less than 10 years old, and parked on the street often outside other people's houses. Is it fair that a household with no car has to look out at a neighbour's car, especially one that is leaking oil because the owner "can't afford to repair it"? The same car-less household that can't access job opportunities because there is no transport?

Or cars blocking the emergency services?

Warning issued to drivers after fire engine blocked by parked cars

AN URGENT warning has been issued to drivers after a badly parked car blocked a fire engine during an emergency response. (contains affiliate links)

www.express.co.uk

 

[Dai Corner]

This is totally silly in my opinion. I own 4 cars, and I can only drive 1 of them at a time. 3 of my cars are classics that are on the road maybe a handful of times a year. So because I use own 4 cars I should therefore be taxed more? I don’t think so. I still use public transport far more than I drive, probably about 90%-10%. I should add I very rarely (if ever) drive to areas where there’s good access to public transport.

Any tax should be increased to the building of NEW cars and scrapping of old ones, that is where the majority of the environmental damage is done and not how many cars people own.

The big issue is public transport is still too expensive for many, if it were a bit cheaper than I’m sure many more would use it. How you would achieve this without any issues just won’t happen though.

People who own more than one car are taxed more, of course, as they have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty on all of them if they want to use them on the public roads.

I've used public transport more since I've turned 60 and got a free bus pass and senior railcard.

 

[GusB]

The subject of the thread is "substantive bus service withdrawals". Please stay on topic.

Anyone who wishes to discuss taxing multiple cars is welcome to start a separate thread in the appropriate section of the forum.

 

[CeeJ]

Kent County Council have announced that they are reducing their funding towards local buses by over a third (£2.2m), and the resulting cuts to bus services seems quite radical. They put it down to rising costs of their statutory services.

This, I’m sure, will get nowhere near the central media attention that TfL cutting a few bus lines has received.

Yet another area that is going to need sweeping Government intervention.

 

[Typhoon]

Kent County Council have announced that they are reducing their funding towards local buses by over a third (£2.2m), and the resulting cuts to bus services seems quite radical. They put it down to rising costs of their statutory services.

This, I’m sure, will get nowhere near the central media attention that TfL cutting a few bus lines has received.

Yet another area that is going to need sweeping Government intervention.

It has achieved some:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62107861
and on local radio at 06:00 this morning

(I also alerted readers of this thread in #117 and Kent County Council - KCC - did a consultation in the spring).

The Kent Karrier services (or possibly only the majority of them) have been saved. This means the bulk of the required cuts will have to be on regular services, including school journeys. Whilst this is good news to those that use the Karrier, I think KCC needs to look at such provision as otherwise many villages will be cut off completely while Karriers sit around, parked up. For instance, one Kent Karrier service carried 794 passengers in a year on a Monday to Friday service, that is less than 3 passenger journeys a day at a cost of £49.18 per passenger journey; my local one costs £184, 964 to run. In the latter case, we have (at least) two volunteer driver schemes which take the elderly with mobility issues to appointments. My mother, who had mobility issues near the end of her life, used the latter rather than the Kent Karrier, although it was more expensive, because she could be taken where she needed to go, at the time when she needed to get there and was returned soon after the appointment is complete; in order to use the Karrier, she would have needed to switch to a more distant medical practice rather than the one where she was known and she knew the medical staff. I know there are others who feel the same.

What has not helped is that KCC started up a number of daily (Mon-Sat, Mon-Fri) services in areas where shopper services (two or three days a week) operated. The former took some passengers from the latter. Now these areas are likely to end up with no service at all.

(Figures from KCC consultation documents - some no longer accessible, I printed them out. Not everything is on-line - forever.)

 

[CeeJ]

(I also alerted readers of this thread in #117 and Kent County Council - KCC - did a consultation in the spring).

Sorry Typhoon, completely missed that!

This means the bulk of the required cuts will have to be on regular services, including school journeys.

The school buses seem to carry half the school population in NW Kent. Cutting those back will see hundreds of more cars on the road.

 

[Ken H]

Sorry Typhoon, completely missed that!

The school buses seem to carry half the school population in NW Kent. Cutting those back will see hundreds of more cars on the road.

Are there no service buses duplicating the school runs that could take the kids? There are big saving to be made there.

 

[RT4038]

Maybe we need to look at this differently and not be scared of the motorist.

For example, there are now many households with 2, 3, 4 or even 5 cars, sometimes more cars than people.
A windfall tax or maybe increased road tax for households with 2 or more cars to make people think about the damage that they are doing to the environment and plough some of that money back into public transport.

Because at the minute I can only see a future where buses run a limited service from 7 to 7 Mon to Sat in urban areas only.

But then politicians won't want to upset the motorist.

But why would politicians be scared of, or want to upset, the motorist? Motorists will be the majority of voters. Politicians are there to (by and large) represent their voters, and particularly those who elect them. Such is democracy. Even some of the minority of voters who are not motorists, will have the aspiration of becoming a motorist, and therefore will not be anti-car.

The notion that MPs (who are more than likely motorists themselves) would really want to proscribe car use and only don't pass laws to that effect because they are scared of, or want to avoid upsetting, motorists, is absurd.

Once private vehicles became within the reach of ordinary people, in the 50s and 60s, public transport was on a downward spiral.

 

[RELL6L]

Partial good news on the Carousel 40 and 103.
The 40 from High Wycombe to Thame is to be replaced commercially by Red Rose to much the same timetable.
The 103 is being withdrawn between Amersham and Rickmansworth / Watford but Arriva are to introduce a 335/336 to cover the route. Buckinghamshire have published a timetable showing three 336 journeys to Amersham and implying that there are more only as far as Chorleywood. Hertfordshire bus changes refers to this but no timetable yet. Arriva - obviously not! Like the use of historical route numbers but no doubt will not be operated by RLHs!

Kent looks pretty drastic - complete withdrawal of the 477! Used to be a major trunk route with double deckers every 30 minutes right through plus extras between Dartford and Swanley. I can't believe this will be lost without some form of replacement. Others look more precarious and several will result in a loss of all services to some villages.

It looks like Warwickshire are tendering for a replacement to the Diamond X20 between Stratford and Solihull while there are some reductions elsewhere in the Stratford area, with Stagecoach picking up quite a bit from Diamond (mainly ex Johnsons routes). No news yet on other Diamond proposed withdrawals especially further west.

 

[Statto]

Daft thing, Kent County Council, got £35 million from the government, for bus improvement plan, but can't use any of it to support existing routes.

 

[Typhoon]

The school buses seem to carry half the school population in NW Kent. Cutting those back will see hundreds of more cars on the road.

Not just there. I live in the east of Kent. With selective schools, single sex schools and faith schools, travelling to school is a way of life.
Grammar schools in East Kent - Ashford 2*, Canterbury 3*, Dover 2*, Faversham 1, Folkestone 2*, Sandwich 1, Sittingbourne 2*, Thanet 2~.

Everywhere else - none. Some students may end up in a Maidstone grammar - all four single sex. So much for choice. What I haven't picked out are the 'super grammars' which only admit those that get really high scores in the Kent Test.

Add to that housing development in areas where the local school is already oversubscribed

* - denotes a pair of single sex schools, ~ - denotes a 'merged' school where all except 6th form and some GCSEs are taught in single sex classes.

Kent developed the education system but, because bus services are not a priority, don't have to ensure pupils can get too or from school (except for those on free school meals). And have no money to do so, even if they wished.

Most school buses will continue - but some, taking fewer pupils, maybe those allocated to a school some distance away because the local school is full, are likely to be cut. The new school year is about eight weeks away, the 'Back to School' banners will be going up and parents are still uncertain about how their child is going to get to the school they were allocated months ago. I am glad I am not in that position.

Daft thing, Kent County Council, got £35 million from the government, for bus improvement plan, but can't use any of it to support existing routes.

Exactly. It will be spent on daft projects - like those described in #116 - fairly frequent services to isolated villages where each journey picks up one or two at most - like the Tenterden Hopper and Sandwich Connect. Once the money runs out, they will be dumped.

 

[Man of Kent]

Daft thing, Kent County Council, got £35 million from the government, for bus improvement plan, but can't use any of it to support existing routes.

Exactly. It will be spent on daft projects - like those described in #116 - fairly frequent services to isolated villages where each journey picks up one or two at most - like the Tenterden Hopper and Sandwich Connect. Once the money runs out, they will be dumped.

Like most offers, it was split into capital and revenue (£24m and £11m in round numbers) so the majority won't go on subsidising services. Plus there was a very strong hint from the DfT to all authorities receiving BSIP money that they want to see fares reductions, so that will mop up a large slice of the revenue funding in many places (almost all of it in the case of Liverpool City Region). And DfT has the final say before they release the cash.

West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin was on Radio 4 this morning making broadly the same point, that BSIP money cannot be used to support existing routes. You are however permitted to replace a route that has already died...

 

[markymark2000]

One thing that I am skeptical about with all of these withdrawals though is how many commercial routes are being dropped with the hope that the route will go out to tender and the company can then win the tender but on the basis of guaranteed revenue, rather than lower profit or cost neutral as they would perhaps have done pre Covid.

It seems like operators right now are chasing every bit of revenue now to get funds back to pre Covid levels rather than the focus pre covid of providing a more attractive service. There is no way that all of the cuts being made are due to slightly lower patronage. 80-85% patronage doesn't mean a service should be fully withdrawn or cut back 50%. Of course I know there is no direct correlation between 85% patronage means 85% service but the cuts are far, far beyond what they should be. This has to be greed stepping in. Whether that be the corporate group demanding more revenue or the local companies, I don't know but I am extremely sceptical that all of these cuts are directly related to slightly lower patronage.

 

[Dai Corner]

One thing that I am skeptical about with all of these withdrawals though is how many commercial routes are being dropped with the hope that the route will go out to tender and the company can then win the tender but on the basis of guaranteed revenue, rather than lower profit or cost neutral as they would perhaps have done pre Covid.

It seems like operators right now are chasing every bit of revenue now to get funds back to pre Covid levels rather than the focus pre covid of providing a more attractive service. There is no way that all of the cuts being made are due to slightly lower patronage. 80-85% patronage doesn't mean a service should be fully withdrawn or cut back 50%. Of course I know there is no direct correlation between 85% patronage means 85% service but the cuts are far, far beyond what they should be. This has to be greed stepping in. Whether that be the corporate group demanding more revenue or the local companies, I don't know but I am extremely sceptical that all of these cuts are directly related to slightly lower patronage.

If a journey/route/depot/company previously made a profit of 10% of revenue and revenue drops by 15% while costs (fuel, wages) rise by 15% something has to give.

 

[Typhoon]

One thing that I am skeptical about with all of these withdrawals though is how many commercial routes are being dropped with the hope that the route will go out to tender and the company can then win the tender but on the basis of guaranteed revenue, rather than lower profit or cost neutral as they would perhaps have done pre Covid.

It seems like operators right now are chasing every bit of revenue now to get funds back to pre Covid levels rather than the focus pre covid of providing a more attractive service. There is no way that all of the cuts being made are due to slightly lower patronage. 80-85% patronage doesn't mean a service should be fully withdrawn or cut back 50%. Of course I know there is no direct correlation between 85% patronage means 85% service but the cuts are far, far beyond what they should be. This has to be greed stepping in. Whether that be the corporate group demanding more revenue or the local companies, I don't know but I am extremely sceptical that all of these cuts are directly related to slightly lower patronage.

If this applies to any of the Kent services, they are almost certainly out of luck. Service subsidies are £6.1million, the council has been charged with cutting them by about £3million. The Kent Karrier services, which will, apparently, be largely protected, cost over £0.5 million. There might be a few who get minimal funding but no more to run them less frequently. token service, maybe they will be picked up by an independent or the much beloved demand responsive service but that is likely to be different providers. Services cut by Arriva and Stagecoach in April and June have not been replaced in any form to my knowledge.

Other areas may be different but local government is struggling and is being given more and more responsibility by central government.

 

[Llandudno]

One thing that I am skeptical about with all of these withdrawals though is how many commercial routes are being dropped with the hope that the route will go out to tender and the company can then win the tender but on the basis of guaranteed revenue, rather than lower profit or cost neutral as they would perhaps have done pre Covid.

It seems like operators right now are chasing every bit of revenue now to get funds back to pre Covid levels rather than the focus pre covid of providing a more attractive service. There is no way that all of the cuts being made are due to slightly lower patronage. 80-85% patronage doesn't mean a service should be fully withdrawn or cut back 50%. Of course I know there is no direct correlation between 85% patronage means 85% service but the cuts are far, far beyond what they should be. This has to be greed stepping in. Whether that be the corporate group demanding more revenue or the local companies, I don't know but I am extremely sceptical that all of these cuts are directly related to slightly lower patronage.

I suspect that this maybe the case with CentreBus’ TransPeak service…

 

[markymark2000]

If a journey/route/depot/company previously made a profit of 10% of revenue and revenue drops by 15% while costs (fuel, wages) rise by 15% something has to give.

Fares are increasing quite substantially in some cases so that should go some way to make up the revenue.

If this applies to any of the Kent services, they are almost certainly out of luck. Service subsidies are £6.1million, the council has been charged with cutting them by about £3million. The Kent Karrier services, which will, apparently, be largely protected, cost over £0.5 million. There might be a few who get minimal funding but no more to run them less frequently. token service, maybe they will be picked up by an independent or the much beloved demand responsive service but that is likely to be different providers. Services cut by Arriva and Stagecoach in April and June have not been replaced in any form to my knowledge.

Other areas may be different but local government is struggling and is being given more and more responsibility by central government.

Not the funded services, the commercial ones. Funded services can often have huge savings by killing dead weight routes. Unfortunately that is too simple for public transport teams who have to make huge reviews and changes to justify their jobs rather than making smaller changes which could save a lot of money and increase passenger numbers (more passengers = less subsidy). Too many people in transport teams with all the gear but no idea. Get rid of the dead weight tenders and council staff, it's amazing what can be done if someone with a brain is in charge, someone who isn't swayed by politics, just there to make things the best that they can be within the financial constraints.

 

[Dai Corner]

Fares are increasing quite substantially in some cases so that should go some way to make up the revenue.

Unless it leads to lower ridership, of course.

 

[markymark2000]

Unless it leads to lower ridership, of course.

Granted. In which case, the why raise fares? Thats another topic though.

 

[Stan Drews]

Okay @markymark2000 lets imagine some numbers.

Marky Buses has a relatively simple one PVR route which has annual running costs of £100,000. Pre-covid the annual revenue was £110,000, providing you with a fairly respectable £10,000 profit, giving you a +10% margin.

However, you are only currently at 80% of pre-covid passenger/revenue levels, so annual revenue is now down to £88,000, and to compound the problem your costs have risen by 10%, meaning you are now making an annual loss of £22,000, (a -20% margin). You tried putting your fares up by 10%, which resulted in some passenger loss, but did give you a 5% yield, so revenue is now up to £92,400, reducing your losses to £17,600, and now just a -16% margin.

Bearing in mind many bus services across the UK weren’t achieving anything like a 10% margin pre-covid, this is perhaps a generous example!

So, as all the experienced managers in the bus industry always get it wrong, we’d be delighted to hear how the management at Marky Buses will go about turning around this dilemma.

 

[Eyersey468]

One thing that I am skeptical about with all of these withdrawals though is how many commercial routes are being dropped with the hope that the route will go out to tender and the company can then win the tender but on the basis of guaranteed revenue, rather than lower profit or cost neutral as they would perhaps have done pre Covid.

It seems like operators right now are chasing every bit of revenue now to get funds back to pre Covid levels rather than the focus pre covid of providing a more attractive service. There is no way that all of the cuts being made are due to slightly lower patronage. 80-85% patronage doesn't mean a service should be fully withdrawn or cut back 50%. Of course I know there is no direct correlation between 85% patronage means 85% service but the cuts are far, far beyond what they should be. This has to be greed stepping in. Whether that be the corporate group demanding more revenue or the local companies, I don't know but I am extremely sceptical that all of these cuts are directly related to slightly lower patronage.

Certainly in terms of the commercial services we cancelled they had been losing money pre Covid

 

[Typhoon]

Certainly in terms of the commercial services we cancelled they had been losing money pre Covid

There will also be routes that were marginal break-even pre-covid but now with rising fuel costs, difficulties in recruiting drivers and falling passenger numbers with (in my experience) older passengers now travelling less regularly as many had to learn how to use home delivery or depend on neighbours (which may still be ongoing), are now loss making.

I'm sorry for keep banging on about school services but it is quite possible that in between school runs a bus and a driver did a couple of shoppers journeys pre-covid. The latter may no longer be viable and there can be only so many drivers who are willing to do a couple of school runs a day with nothing in-between. True there are meal breaks that need to be factored in but if you are left with mainly school runs and a few other services, drivers are likely to be spending quite a lot of time in the local caff. So. while a school run may make some money, in the whole scheme of things, not enough to keep the bus and the driver on the road.

 

[Eyersey468]

There will also be routes that were marginal break-even pre-covid but now with rising fuel costs, difficulties in recruiting drivers and falling passenger numbers with (in my experience) older passengers now travelling less regularly as many had to learn how to use home delivery or depend on neighbours (which may still be ongoing), are now loss making.

I'm sorry for keep banging on about school services but it is quite possible that in between school runs a bus and a driver did a couple of shoppers journeys pre-covid. The latter may no longer be viable and there can be only so many drivers who are willing to do a couple of school runs a day with nothing in-between. True there are meal breaks that need to be factored in but if you are left with mainly school runs and a few other services, drivers are likely to be spending quite a lot of time in the local caff. So. while a school run may make some money, in the whole scheme of things, not enough to keep the bus and the driver on the road.

We have a few duties at various depots where the bus does schools and the work in-between is basically infill work to make the bus viable over the course of a day

 

[Typhoon]

We have a few duties at various depots where the bus does schools and the work in-between is basically infill work to make the bus viable over the course of a day

Thanks, I guessed as much. It will depend on the area where a driver works and the operator concerned but once some of the infill work becomes unviable the pressure must mount on the school services.

At the end of the day (most) operators are businesses, those whose HQs are hundreds of miles away may be loathe to sustain a loss making route for any length of time. Even those that aren't businesses will need some alternative form of finance to survive if journeys don't pay their way, at a time when money is tight.

 

[Eyersey468]

Thanks, I guessed as much. It will depend on the area where a driver works and the operator concerned but once some of the infill work becomes unviable the pressure must mount on the school services.

At the end of the day (most) operators are businesses, those whose HQs are hundreds of miles away may be loathe to sustain a loss making route for any length of time. Even those that aren't businesses will need some alternative form of finance to survive if journeys don't pay their way, at a time when money is tight.

This is the thing, a route can't be run at a loss indefinitely, but some people don't seem to understand that

 

[WelshBluebird]

This is the thing, a route can't be run at a loss indefinitely, but some people don't seem to understand that

Surely if an operator has other routes that make enough profit to cover the routes that operate at a loss, they can run indefinitely?

 

[820KDV]

Funded services can often have huge savings by killing dead weight routes. Unfortunately that is too simple for public transport teams who have to make huge reviews and changes to justify their jobs rather than making smaller changes which could save a lot of money and increase passenger numbers (more passengers = less subsidy). Too many people in transport teams with all the gear but no idea. Get rid of the dead weight tenders and council staff, it's amazing what can be done if someone with a brain is in charge, someone who isn't swayed by politics, just there to make things the best that they can be within the financial constraints.

I think that comment about LTA officers is highly insulting, but I will assume its made through lack of knowledge.

I am sure some LTAs might be like that, but most are running on a much reduced staff, and have been for a number of years. It's not just me saying this, the DfT recognise it too by providing Capacity Funding to LTAs and by setting up a Centre of Excellence under Bus Back Better. And of course, the local political situation also dictates a lot of what officers do. I can think of several things we provide because a prominent councillor tells us to, despite it not being in line with policy.

As for commercial operators "trying it on" some might be, but if you're running an hourly inter-urban service with 3 buses but revenue is about 80% how do you propose cutting that? Fine if you have a dozen buses running a high frequency route, you can cut a bus, or even two, without too many passengers noticing. But companies also need to consider the contribution each route makes to the overheads. You can't cut 20% of a Managing Director, or (rarely) sell off part of a depot because you don't need all of the maintenance pits now.

As others have said, costs are rising too. Not just fuel, but one operator has told us that glass prices have gone up 300%. Good luck claiming that back when the locals decide to throw bricks at your evening buses. Other spare parts have also rocketed in price, if they are obtainable.

I hope readers will understand that I don't feel able to give specific examples but in my LTA area, whilst there are a few frequency reductions which will remain in place until driver numbers increase, we don't anticipate any commercial withdrawals, nor any tenders to be handed back. But make no mistake, many routes are only just the right side of the survival line.

 

[Man of Kent]

Surely if an operator has other routes that make enough profit to cover the routes that operate at a loss, they can run indefinitely?

But the number of routes that "make enough profit" is diminishing too. The 1970s solution was to reduce frequent well patronised services to keep infrequent poorly patronised ones going. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

 

[Eyersey468]

Surely if an operator has other routes that make enough profit to cover the routes that operate at a loss, they can run indefinitely?

I get your point but what happens when costs rise and margins fall? Something has to give and that something is loss making work.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2022 ==

But the number of routes that "make enough profit" is diminishing too. The 1970s solution was to reduce frequent well patronised services to keep infrequent poorly patronised ones going. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Exactly, for the good of the company as a whole it has to be loss making stuff that gets cut, not taking buses off people that use them to prop up a heavily loss making no hoper of a route