The immediate agenda - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 394

The Government's initiative represents acknowledgement that its previous
attempts to improve local bus services through partnership arrangements and legal
amendments, plus additional capital and revenue expenditure channelled mainly
through local authorities, has not achieved the degree of success which had been
hoped for. Its relatively modest objective for growing bus patronage as a whole is in
practice being met by a peculiar combination of quite remarkable success in London
and a few freestanding towns offset by a general trend of continued decline elsewhere.
In too many areas, including many of our major cities outside London, partnership
is still not working effectively. Bus users and the general public report that many
services are not meeting the high standards they expect and in too many places
patronage remains on a downward curve. Without further action a vicious spiral
of decline is likely to take hold in more of our communities; falling demand and
rising unit costs forcing bus operators to raise fares and cut back services, so
leading to further reductions in demand or a need for ever-increasing levels of
subsidy to maintain services.
(DfT 2006e Executive Summary)
PTEG (the Passenger Transport Executive Group) in particular had been lobbying
for years for changes in the regulatory framework beyond those introduced under the
2000 Act. The 'tipping point' in persuading the Government to respond appears to
have been its own interest in seeing pilot local road pricing schemes introduced.
In areas that are developing proposals for such schemes the ability to guarantee
tangible improvements in local public transport is expected to be a crucial element
of the policy package, so that more people can see a realistic, reliable and cost-
effective alternative to the private car.
(ibid.)
Put more bluntly the Government was being told that urban road pricing was
undeliverable without a quantum improvement in local bus services and equally that
such an improvement was undeliverable within the existing regulatory framework,
give that the original Quality Contract procedures were unworkable.
The Government retained the principles of Quality Partnerships and Contracts
but sought to amend their terms and procedures to make them a more feasible and
attractive proposition (Box 23.3). The Act also strengthens the legal framework
surrounding the monitoring of bus punctuality and improves opportunities for the
provision of community transport. In all these fields the Traffic Commissioners are
to take a more prominent role and in support of this a separate Consultation Paper
proposes changes to their organisation (DfT 2007k).
The Act's provisions concerning bus regulation are especially controversial and
uncertain in their implications. The Government has published a draft version of
guidance (DfT 2007p) which seeks to explain the detailed application of the Act's
provisions concerning Voluntary Agreements, Quality Partnership and Quality
Contract Schemes plus a section on Competition Guidance provided by the Office of
Fair Trading. Notwithstanding 134 pages of guidance the document concludes with the
advice that anyone in doubt about how they may be affected by the legislation should
consult a lawyer! It is a testament to how complex and bureaucratic the relatively
simple business of arranging a bus service has become as the Government struggles