Supported Bus Services Face Uncertain Future

Reading Time: 5 minutes

A meeting happened on Friday 4th November which I thank Tim for bringing to my attention because I have never thought to subscribe to the Council’s various transport feeds. Hampshire County Council have recently had their Economy, Transport and Environment sub-committee meeting to rubber stamp their financial commitments to subsidised bus services in the county.

The meeting had pre-released documents to scrutinise, which included figures from a survey I highlighted a few months ago on Twitter and Facebook and despite what I felt was a lacklustre promotion of the consultation received 2,687 responses. From a county population of nearly 1.4 Million, that’s still quite a small response and probably skewed to those within the transport industry.

The consultation offered a number of headline findings which were not really surprising –

• respondents preferred the prospect of less service trips per day to less days of operation per week,
• agreed that an increase in charges on dial-a-ride / taxishare / demand responsive services was needed,
• and supported bus services should be prioritised

If you want to see all of the results, then they are available on the Hampshire County Council website (as a PDF) here.

Funding Decisions

It should be borne in mind that these are decisions specifically about the funding, rather than decisions on the timetable and future of services. In some cases, service changes have already occurred prior to the meeting and we will try to reflect that. Where a service is not mentioned, it is either not affected or has been considered as no proposed change.

Andover

• Thruxton service 5 will keep the same funding. Based on the fact that costs have increased, this may lead to a reduction in service.
• Former CANGO services C3 through to C8 will have funding withdrawn and it is proposed to replace this with a demand-responsive service

Basingstoke

• Andover to Basingstoke service 76 will lose the funding for it’s pair or late evening journeys.
• Service 4 – serving North Hampshire Hospital – is proposed to have changes to the 0820 from Chineham and 1520 from Basingstoke Bus Station to accommodate a trip for Bishop Challenor School.
• Wednesdays only Hannington service 54 will be withdrawn and placed within a dial-a-ride service.
• Services 12, 14, 15 and 17 will not lose funding, but with increasing costs this then may affect the timetable.

Eastleigh

• Xelabus X6 & X7 services, withdrawn a few months ago; has a replacement proposed to be in partnership with Eastleigh Borough Council and Chandlers Ford Parish Council.
  • Now – whether this in fact refers to Southampton Mini Link’s service C, which was also withdrawn, I am not sure. I do remember Simon Gard referring to continuing the service while the council funded a replacement….
• Xelabus X9 & X10 (recently reduced in frequency) and Stagecoach South E1 & E2 are proposed to be combined into a single procured route. The proposal specifically pointed out that funding for the current X9 and X10 had not been reduced to prompt the service reductions.
• Xelabus X15 to Hamble, withdrawn a few months ago; currently has a replacement service being procured by HCC, EBC and potentially some local parishes.

East Hampshire

• No changes to funding on 13 / 18 / 23 / 38 – although that could lead to service reductions while costs are high.
• Rowlands Castle service 27 will have it’s peak time funding removed and the service re-timed around it’s off-peak journeys.
• Bishops Waltham to Petersfield X17 to be partly replaced by the Meon Valley Community Bus.
• Chichester & Midhurst services 54, 91, 92 & 93 to have funding withdrawn. I believe that these services are co-funded with West Sussex County Council as well.
• Froxfield service 71 and Buriton service 94 to be merged into a single route.

Fareham & Gosport

• Services 11 to Gosport and Alverstoke, and 28 to Whiteley have funding changed proposed, although the higher operating cost may lead to service changes.
• Wickham service 20 is likely to see either trip numbers or days of operation removed.
• Hill Head service 21 will have it’s peak time funding removed and the service re-timed around it’s off-peak journeys. I wonder though if First Solent will simply run some peak time trips commercially.
• First Solent withdrawn F3 to Portchester is proposed to be replaced with a taxi-share.

New Forest

• CANGO C32 & C33 services are proposed to revert to a standard timetabled service, with funding withdrawn for weekday trips after 14:45 and the whole Saturday service.

Romsey

• Brashfield service 35 to be reduced to a single return trip, supplemented by the College Day Only service 635.
• Bluestar services 36 and 39 to have funding withdrawn.

Winchester

• The once Southampton to Winchester ( and hourly) service 46, which is currently a North Baddesley to Winchester service; is proposed to become funded for one return trip per day during the School Holidays only.
• Petersfield service 67 and East Stratton service 95 are not proposed any funding changes, however the higher operating costs may lead to service changes. Interestingly, the taxi-share 95 is proposed to be withdrawn(?)

Other Spending Changes

It is not just the ‘traditional’ timetabled bus services that are also facing reductions. Many of the demand responsive, dial-a-ride and other services that are seeing the paring knife taking some of the funding away. Although Hampshire County Council are making proposals based on their agreed reduction of spend, many of these services are co-funded with others.

• Reductions in service hours are expected for dial-a-rides in Basingstoke, New Forest, Winchester, Fareham, Gosport and East Hampshire.
• Reduction in vehicle numbers and staff for Eastleigh Dial-a-Ride
• Merger of some routes at Test Valley Call & Go

The full list of changes can again be found in a PDF version of an appendix to the spending review – here.

Taxi-share services are also proposing change:

• Clanfield and Lovedean service 36C to be merged into Havant Dial-A-Ride
• Basingstoke taxi-share 210 to run Friday’s only
• Hayling Island taxi-share 32 to lose 1 journey each way
• Meon Valley to Fareham taxishare 96 to lose one return journey

Am I convinced or not?

Now, I was one of the respondents for the consultation that was already convinced that the slashing to subsidised services was inevitable even before the consultation was completed. I don’t think that there was any other way to say it, although I am surprised that more routes have not been axed.

There are some clashes though that I think could have worked better together. Note the reduction in the First Solent 20 being proposed alongside the cuts to the Meon Valley taxi-share. Maybe some elements of the taxishare should have been merged into the 20 to make the latter more viable?

Procuring a (or 2) Mellor Sigma 7, which the immanent installation of charging facilities at Hoeford could support, and making a gap in the 20 at Wickham to facilitate replacing the taxi-share; might work. I am no economist for bus service provision though, so I might be talking so far out of my exhaust pipe.

What I do think though, probably with a little more obviousness, is that maintaining funding and expecting bus operators to consider cuts because of higher operating costs; is likely to lead to a period of managed decline. It is now, in many parts of the market, more profitable for a bus operator to run private contracts and hires such as rail replacement than it is to run a contracted bus service. I think it is perfectly demonstrated when a company laments buying brand new buses and promote them for a specific route, only to then use them everywhere but.

When the councils realise that and take action – dare I say hopefully we will see something more radical, like a HCC arms-length bus company dedicated to cost-natural contracted services.