Hampshire County Council proposing withdrawing funding for bus services

[nw1]

Found out about this via an advert on a bus but it appears that HCC are proposing to withdraw all funding for public transport services (including buses but also DRT, etc) from 2025.

See https://www.hants.gov.uk/abouttheco...ure-services-consultation/passenger-transport

and in particular, if the proposals are approved:

Hampshire County Council passenger transport funding for supported local bus services would be withdrawn by April 2025

Good grief. It shows what a shocking political state we are in if all council-supported buses in Hampshire are withdrawn in around a year's time.

It just shows how far rightwards UK politics has drifted if something so radical is being proposed. I don't want to get too political, but this would not have happened even under Thatcher and, as the root cause appears to be a lack of funding from central government, it is yet more evidence that we have a government more interested in fighting culture wars than supporting public services; easily the most right-wing government of my lifetime.

I hope that there are enough complaints that these proposals are not implemented.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It was discussed (as a side issue) when @RELL6L had a recent trip to Hampshire https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/trips-by-bus-and-coach-your-reports.224583/post-6591684

Complaints are one thing but with ballooning social care costs, other statutory responsibilities, and years of underfunding from central government since Cameron and Osborne, chickens are coming home to roost.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Oxfordshire did that back in (IIRC) 2016 under a Conservative administration. A lot of services were withdrawn as a result.

In the most recent Oxfordshire County Council elections, a rainbow coalition of LibDem/Labour/Green was elected (Labour has since pulled out), and they have resumed bus subsidies.

I probably don't need to ask which party runs Hampshire, do I?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Found out about this via an advert on a bus but it appears that HCC are proposing to withdraw all funding for public transport services (including buses but also DRT, etc) from 2025.

See https://www.hants.gov.uk/abouttheco...ure-services-consultation/passenger-transport

and in particular, if the proposals are approved:



Good grief. It shows what a shocking political state we are in if all council-supported buses in Hampshire are withdrawn in around a year's time.

It just shows how far rightwards UK politics has drifted if something so radical is being proposed. I don't want to get too political, but this would not have happened even under Thatcher and, as the root cause appears to be a lack of funding from central government, it is yet more evidence that we have a government more interested in fighting culture wars than supporting public services; easily the most right-wing government of my lifetime.

I hope that there are enough complaints that these proposals are not implemented.

Yeah, this will be devastating for a lot of rural Hampshire.
Interesting that they're planning to withdraw subsidy a month before the next county elections.
They may well cancel the changes at the last minute to shore up vulnerable areas (well, not politically vulnerable traditionally, but cuts to transport could give local independents a crack at some previously safe Tory seats).

 

[A0]

Interesting that they're planning to withdraw subsidy a month before the next county elections.

However there's no great conspiracy, it's easily explained. Local Government Financial Years are from April - March, so the reason for withdrawal by April is that there would be no costs for those services in the new financial year, nothing more, nothing less. If the Financial Year ran from January - December, they'd be withdrawing it from December.

Found out about this via an advert on a bus but it appears that HCC are proposing to withdraw all funding for public transport services (including buses but also DRT, etc) from 2025.

Well, not quite. If you read the detail, on public bus services they pay £ 800k and get a further £ 1.1m from central government. They're looking at removing the £ 800k.

It's also worth noting the point that they support 93 routes which represent less than 10% of passenger journeys on buses in Hampshire. I suspect if you dig into the the detail, something like the "80/20 rule" will come into play, whereby 80% of the demand is covered by 20% of the cost and vice versa. So there could be a high number of routes which are withdrawn, but the majority of users will be unaffected.

 

[duncombec]

Two things I noted from the extended documentation:

- There may be changes afoot to funding of concessionary passes. I don't recall this being mentioned elsewhere here, although it may be bundled up in wider discussion on government funding.

- Some of these services have very low usage, and stonkingly high nominal costs. According to the "Public Transport Appendix" linked from the page in the OPs post, service 43 had no recorded passengers in 2022/23, whilst service 15/17 (infill journeys on otherwise Stagecoach operated services) had 12 passengers, at a cost of £231.33 per passenger. The Friday only 333 carried 102 passengers (i.e. <2 per week) at a per passenger cost of £28.16... Although these services are taxishares, so don't operate if nobody books them and therefore have a "nominal cost", that is well beyond what I think most people would consider prudent budgeting. Some of the fixed route local services seem a relative snip by comparison!

It's also noteworthy to see a comparison between the annual passenger journeys in 2022/23 and those projected for 2023/24. Some services are rising dramatically, others less so, others have declined. Service 7, Hartley Witney to Aldershot is projected to have carried 8000 more passengers, service 28/a Fareham to Whiteley has doubled (37k to 74k), service 14 Basingstoke to Tadley, by contrast, 23000 fewer, and service 46 Winchester to North Baddesley nearly 2/3rds fewer (6.6k to 2.3k). Nice to see a council looking partly forward in this way, rather than merely referring back to previous usage.

 

[Typhoon]

No surprise. they flagged up that the situation was dire in the autumn.

One of the UK’s largest Conservative-run councils has warned it faces “financial meltdown” and has called on ministers to fix the “broken” local government funding system to avoid it and many other authorities plunging into effective bankruptcy.

Hampshire county council said without a major overhaul of council finances in England – which it admitted was unlikely to come in time to prevent cuts – it would be forced to push ahead with drastic reductions to local services over the next 18 months, and could face insolvency by 2026.

The council has to find £132m by April 2025 to help fill a widening budget gap but has said it cannot rely on operational cuts and council tax rises alone to balance the books without ditching “safe” levels of core service.

I don't think it will be the last. Kent is in a similar position having cut back a whole swathe of routes last year.
As @TheGrandWazoo quite rightly states, local government has continually been starved of resources for over a decade (my memory doesn't stretch that far back but I don't suppose the Brown government was over generous following the Banking Crisis, either). A few pots of money, to be bid for, to be spent on new schemes just to say something has been done. The problem is that those who rely on these services are primarily the elderly, those who have never driven or those who have been 'advised' not to (including by themselves). True there are taxis, but reliance on those is likely to mean going out less regularly. It is not something I would be (or am) looking forward to.

Unfortunately, not all local authorities have been proactive in anticipating change. One that has is East Sussex with its established range of community volunteer-staffed services. The ones I have used appear to be well patronised. They were set up in the good times, unfortunately it is probably too late for others to try and follow suit.

Quote from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...hire-council-says-it-faces-financial-meltdown

 

[Lewisham2221]

Not the first authority to do so, and almost certainly won't be the last. Stoke did this years ago (although various support did trickle back in and now there's obviously BSIP as well) and Staffs proposed it, although I think it was eventually watered down to severe cuts rather than outright removal of all subsidy.

 

[yorksrob]

All of the costs of societal/economic breakdown percolate down to local authorities, resulting in higher demands for both adults and children's social care and social housing. This together with increased costs of providing those services leads to a perfect storm.

 

[Revilo]

It was discussed (as a side issue) when @RELL6L had a recent trip to Hampshire https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/trips-by-bus-and-coach-your-reports.224583/post-6591684

Complaints are one thing but with ballooning social care costs, other statutory responsibilities, and years of underfunding from central government since Cameron and Osborne, chickens are coming home to roost.

‘Years of underfunding’ caused by Gordon Brown’s mishandling of the economy which forced the Conservative Lib Dem coalition to have to implement austerity.

 

[Darandio]

‘Years of underfunding’ caused by Gordon Brown’s mishandling of the economy which forced the Conservative Lib Dem coalition to have to implement austerity.

Did you type that with a serious face as well?

 

[Titfield]

Two things I noted from the extended documentation:

- There may be changes afoot to funding of concessionary passes. I don't recall this being mentioned elsewhere here, although it may be bundled up in wider discussion on government funding.

- Some of these services have very low usage, and stonkingly high nominal costs. According to the "Public Transport Appendix" linked from the page in the OPs post, service 43 had no recorded passengers in 2022/23, whilst service 15/17 (infill journeys on otherwise Stagecoach operated services) had 12 passengers, at a cost of £231.33 per passenger. The Friday only 333 carried 102 passengers (i.e. <2 per week) at a per passenger cost of £28.16... Although these services are taxishares, so don't operate if nobody books them and therefore have a "nominal cost", that is well beyond what I think most people would consider prudent budgeting. Some of the fixed route local services seem a relative snip by comparison!

It's also noteworthy to see a comparison between the annual passenger journeys in 2022/23 and those projected for 2023/24. Some services are rising dramatically, others less so, others have declined. Service 7, Hartley Witney to Aldershot is projected to have carried 8000 more passengers, service 28/a Fareham to Whiteley has doubled (37k to 74k), service 14 Basingstoke to Tadley, by contrast, 23000 fewer, and service 46 Winchester to North Baddesley nearly 2/3rds fewer (6.6k to 2.3k). Nice to see a council looking partly forward in this way, rather than merely referring back to previous usage.

The question that no one dares answer: how much subsidy should be the maximum subsidy per passenger?

Yes there are huge issues to consider but surely a line has to be drawn somewhere?

 

[nw1]

‘Years of underfunding’ caused by Gordon Brown’s mishandling of the economy which forced the Conservative Lib Dem coalition to have to implement austerity.

Gordon Brown? Thought it was a global crisis.

And of course they didn't "have" to implement austerity to the extent they did. That was a very Conservative way of dealing with the problem.

 

[AlastairFraser]

However there's no great conspiracy, it's easily explained. Local Government Financial Years are from April - March, so the reason for withdrawal by April is that there would be no costs for those services in the new financial year, nothing more, nothing less. If the Financial Year ran from January - December, they'd be withdrawing it from December.

While that is a reasonable partial explanation, I can't help but feel they will withdraw the threat of total subsidy withdrawal closer to the election.

 

[fgwrich]

As a resident of Hampshire, some of those cutbacks are incredibly drastic and quite frustrating. We'll certainly be opposing any of them round here if we can as some of those routes are fairly well used (The 4 in Basingstoke for example connects various swathes of the town with the North Hants Hospital and is used by a lot of staff and patients).

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

As @TheGrandWazoo quite rightly states, local government has continually been starved of resources for over a decade (my memory doesn't stretch that far back but I don't suppose the Brown government was over generous following the Banking Crisis, either). A few pots of money, to be bid for, to be spent on new schemes just to say something has been done. The problem is that those who rely on these services are primarily the elderly, those who have never driven or those who have been 'advised' not to (including by themselves). True there are taxis, but reliance on those is likely to mean going out less regularly. It is not something I would be (or am) looking forward to.

I would suggest you are out by a factor of about four. Attacks by central government on local government funding really got going under Thatcher during the 1980s though the main focus then was on the hated Metropolitan Counties, most of which were very much under Labour control and some were decidedly left wing. However the trend was truly established and has not stopped even under New Labour. And I fear it will continue until such time as the wider public understands that neo-Liberal economics and the trickle-down effect don't actually work for the majority of people.

To relate more to the topic under discussion consider Thatcher's oft-quoted view that anyone over the age of 25 who doesn't drive is a failure: that sowed the seed for so many Tories seeing little or no value in providing subsidies towards public transport (or many other public services). Social cohesion is an utterly alien concept to such people but we continue to elect them so expect more of the same.

 

[HullRailMan]

The question that no one dares answer: how much subsidy should be the maximum subsidy per passenger?

Yes there are huge issues to consider but surely a line has to be drawn somewhere?

This is exactly the point, and people will dodge it all day. A bus service that carts around 99% fresh air may be a loss to the 1 or 2 regular users, but it’s perfectly reasonable to ask whether it is a worthwhile use of taxpayers cash. These decisions need to be taken with the head rather than the heart, but (as this thread shows) too often descend into political point scoring with nonsensical rhetoric thrown around.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2024 ==

I would suggest you are out by a factor of about four. Attacks by central government on local government funding really got going under Thatcher during the 1980s though the main focus then was on the hated Metropolitan Counties, most of which were very much under Labour control and some were decidedly left wing. However the trend was truly established and has not stopped even under New Labour. And I fear it will continue until such time as the wider public understands that neo-Liberal economics and the trickle-down effect don't actually work for the majority of people.

To relate more to the topic under discussion consider Thatcher's oft-quoted view that anyone over the age of 25 who doesn't drive is a failure: that sowed the seed for so many Tories seeing little or no value in providing subsidies towards public transport (or many other public services). Social cohesion is an utterly alien concept to such people but we continue to elect them so expect more of the same.

There’s little to no evidence that Mrs Thatcher ever said that, even Full Fact website agree with this. Of course, that doesn’t stop people using her as a bogeyman.

Did Margaret Thatcher say bus users over the age of 25 were failures? – Full Fact

The quote appears to have been coined by a poet. It has since been attributed to Mrs Thatcher, but we don’t know whether she ever quoted it.

fullfact.org

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

There’s little to no evidence that Mrs Thatcher ever said that, even Full Fact website agree with this. Of course, that doesn’t stop people using her as a bogeyman.

Did Margaret Thatcher say bus users over the age of 25 were failures? – Full Fact

The quote appears to have been coined by a poet. It has since been attributed to Mrs Thatcher, but we don’t know whether she ever quoted it.

fullfact.org

Well of course it does, it was founded by a Conservative Party donor! It may sometimes have its heart in the right place but independent it certainly isn't. Also notable that its rebuttal of the quote only started in response to Corbyn using it. As such I have no doubt as to Thatcher's views on the subject: remember a key part of her overall political philosophy was self-sufficiency aka dog eat dog.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

‘Years of underfunding’ caused by Gordon Brown’s mishandling of the economy which forced the Conservative Lib Dem coalition to have to implement austerity.

Not wishing to go further into a rabbit hole and away from Hampshire's woes per se, but feel this has to be tackled and the false narrative that @Revilo is perpetuating.

We may have had a coalition but the Conservatives were in control, esp of the financial aspect. To highlight this:

In 1996/7, the level of government debt to GDP was 36.6%. In 2007/8, it was 35.6%. Only after the financial crash of 2008 did it climb to 64.7% as Northern Rock and HBOS teetered under sub-prime debt deals. Note that the figure in 2015/6 after the coalition was 81.3%.

If you want the absolute terms, then you'd have to factor in inflation but suffice to say, debt increased under Labour only because of the global financial crash. Under the Tories since 2010, then despite austerity, debt increased massively even without Covid.

Getting this back onto the topic and keeping the mods happy - Hampshire is just the latest local authority to have to make such choices, and they won't be the last. Whether they enact all the cuts, we can't say though as we've seen elsewhere, buses are not sacred when you have the cost of social care ballooning.

 

[nw1]

I would suggest you are out by a factor of about four. Attacks by central government on local government funding really got going under Thatcher during the 1980s though the main focus then was on the hated Metropolitan Counties, most of which were very much under Labour control and some were decidedly left wing. However the trend was truly established and has not stopped even under New Labour. And I fear it will continue until such time as the wider public understands that neo-Liberal economics and the trickle-down effect don't actually work for the majority of people.

To relate more to the topic under discussion consider Thatcher's oft-quoted view that anyone over the age of 25 who doesn't drive is a failure: that sowed the seed for so many Tories seeing little or no value in providing subsidies towards public transport (or many other public services). Social cohesion is an utterly alien concept to such people but we continue to elect them so expect more of the same.

Did she actually say that or was that just hearsay? (EDIT: sorry, this has been discussed above).

 

[markymark2000]

- Some of these services have very low usage, and stonkingly high nominal costs. According to the "Public Transport Appendix" linked from the page in the OPs post, service 43 had no recorded passengers in 2022/23, whilst service 15/17 (infill journeys on otherwise Stagecoach operated services) had 12 passengers, at a cost of £231.33 per passenger. The Friday only 333 carried 102 passengers (i.e. <2 per week) at a per passenger cost of £28.16... Although these services are taxishares, so don't operate if nobody books them and therefore have a "nominal cost", that is well beyond what I think most people would consider prudent budgeting. Some of the fixed route local services seem a relative snip by comparison!

To be fair, the 17 is mostly duplicated by other services. Not always at the exact same time but still decent times for shopping, but all that needs to happen is Stagecoach to promote their college day services as open to the public (they already are open but generally unadvertised as such). 852 covers the A343, 15 covers Anna Valley. 9 covers Andover Estates. It's only Over Wallop and Abotts Ann who lose out.

It cant help all of these Hampshire Community Transport routes though when they are travelling so many dead miles. 1 trip here, 1 random trip there. It really can't help the costs for those routes.

 

[AlastairFraser]

To be fair, the 17 is mostly duplicated by other services. Not always at the exact same time but still decent times for shopping, but all that needs to happen is Stagecoach to promote their college day services as open to the public (they already are open but generally unadvertised as such). 852 covers the A343, 15 covers Anna Valley. 9 covers Andover Estates. It's only Over Wallop and Abotts Ann who lose out.

It cant help all of these Hampshire Community Transport routes though when they are travelling so many dead miles. 1 trip here, 1 random trip there. It really can't help the costs for those routes.

The problem is that the passengers will just switch to cars and rural Hants roads are already bad as it is - if they wanted to withdraw the rural higher subsidy routes, a county wide DRT would make more sense (if properly implemented).
It has to be county-wide though, not just limited to certain routes.

 

[A0]

While that is a reasonable partial explanation, I can't help but feel they will withdraw the threat of total subsidy withdrawal closer to the election.

It's not a "partial" explanation at all. It's *the* explanation.

Council budgets for FY 2024/25 have already been set. They are now doing the budgeting work for FY 2025/26 - and if budgets in sone areas are going to be reduced or removed there needs to be consultation on such measures to see if there are mitigations or other measures which could be taken - the time required for such things runs into months.

Evidence here> https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/your-council/finance/guide

At East Sussex County Council, our process for setting our budget typically starts 14 months beforehand, and budgets are considered over a 4-year planning cycle. Because much information is unknown at the time, these figures provide only an indication of how much future funding will become available.

 

[WibbleWobble]

service 28/a Fareham to Whiteley has doubled (37k to 74k)

No surprise given it has been extended to serve the massive North Whiteley housing development (with peak trips to Botley Station). However, I think this is heavily subsidised using Section 106 money.

For context though, this is all because Hampshire Council need to fill a projected £132 million (by 2025/26) funding shortfall.

 

[markymark2000]

The problem is that the passengers will just switch to cars and rural Hants roads are already bad as it is - if they wanted to withdraw the rural higher subsidy routes, a county wide DRT would make more sense (if properly implemented).
It has to be county-wide though, not just limited to certain routes.

Given the 15/17 is carrying 12 passengers per year, I hardly think that is too much of an increase of traffic.

In general, I'd be saying the issue for usage on these routes is the barrier to use. You can't say on the day I want to go out, you have to plan it in advance and book it. Plus with Hampshire Community transport, they must operate under Section 19 permits which means there is the faff of becoming a 'member' because of the silly rules around section 19 permits (I think that all community buses should be under Section 22 permits, none of this faff with 'being a member'). There's also a lack of consistency so like on the 15/17, to use the HCT trips, you need to be a member and pre book, on the Stagecoach trips you turn up and go.

X57 and F3 services, why are these such separate services? You could condense these into a single route twice per week (1 less day that the vehicle is needed). 26 & 27, why separate services? Have it as a scheduled route twice per week, Park Gate to Hedge End. Then, rather than having 1 bus needed on 4 days, you will have the 1 bus doing a tiny bit more but on 2 days. Replicate that sort of logic over the county, you won't need as many vehicles and you'd have less dead mileage so you'd make quite nice savings without large cuts to service.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It's not a "partial" explanation at all. It's *the* explanation.

Council budgets for FY 2024/25 have already been set. They are now doing the budgeting work for FY 2025/26 - and if budgets in sone areas are going to be reduced or removed there needs to be consultation on such measures to see if there are mitigations or other measures which could be taken - the time required for such things runs into months.

Evidence here> https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/your-council/finance/guide

I'm aware of the local government budgeting process, but the cuts to be made to ensure a balanced budget is reached will be affected by political considerations, apart from ringfenced funding like e.g. education.
Councils won't cut adult social care (or, alternatively, councillor allowances!) unless they have to, but public transport subsidy is a much better target from their POV.

 

[duncombec]

It cant help all of these Hampshire Community Transport (HCT) routes though when they are travelling so many dead miles. 1 trip here, 1 random trip there. It really can't help the costs for those routes.

They seem to have a variety of hubs (as seems common with these providers who cover a wide area), and as a community transport operation, may well be covering those areas anyway on 'social services' type contracts. There's also no guarantee that the vehicles return to a set location each evening. The budget papers do say that because the services are bookable, there is just a nominal cost if the services don't run, as the council only pays if the trip is used. The costs are therefore likely to still be lower than if a bus was provided as a 'standard' service.

No surprise given it has been extended to serve the massive North Whiteley housing development (with peak trips to Botley Station). However, I think this is heavily subsidised using Section 106 money.

Thanks - not my area, so I was just using the figures... that would certainly explain it! My general point was that it was nice to see this trend included, rather than just a single year's figures. It certainly helps to show a short-term trend and see which services are bouncing back post-Covid.

In general, I'd be saying the issue for usage on these routes is the barrier to use. You can't say on the day I want to go out, you have to plan it in advance and book it. Plus with Hampshire Community transport, they must operate under Section 19 permits which means there is the faff of becoming a 'member' because of the silly rules around section 19 permits (I think that all community buses should be under Section 22 permits, none of this faff with 'being a member'). There's also a lack of consistency so like on the 15/17, to use the HCT trips, you need to be a member and pre book, on the Stagecoach trips you turn up and go.

Point accepted, but most of these services appear to be a way of keeping a traditional shoppers service running without a heavy fixed cost. Yes, you have to book before 4pm on the previous day, but how many people will suddenly wake up and decide to go out at 09:30 AM that they hadn't decided to do at 15:45 the previous day? Especially given the majority of users are likely elderly (although "open to all"), and in my experience, they tend to plan. Appreciate you may be making a more general point, but with the services here, I don't think that very likely.

X57 and F3 services, why are these such separate services? You could condense these into a single route twice per week (1 less day that the vehicle is needed). 26 & 27, why separate services? Have it as a scheduled route twice per week, Park Gate to Hedge End. Then, rather than having 1 bus needed on 4 days, you will have the 1 bus doing a tiny bit more but on 2 days. Replicate that sort of logic over the county, you won't need as many vehicles and you'd have less dead mileage so you'd make quite nice savings without large cuts to service.

Good questions... but perhaps they have already been looked at and answered accordingly? Neither of us being in the area, perhaps there are other social services or private hire needs in the area that mean service combining isn't suitable? Presumably the driver still needs a break between the shoppers service, and, say, a school contract. They may serve different markets? Is there, for example, an OAP club on one day that the same passengers attend who may go shopping on another day, so combining the service would actually result in less use? Indeed, in some cases, perhaps the "bus" is actually a large car/people carrier, so combining the services may mean not enough room? Of course, it's perfectly possible that they haven't been looked at, but we should perhaps be cautious about being so determinate that there would be savings if routes were combined as you suggest.

Of course, we could submit our feedback to the consultation if we were really bothered!