Archived decisions

Contact: Andrew Berncastle, ext 6389 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report details the position on local bus service support this year, describes the evolving Passenger Transport Strategy for the future, provides an update on rail franchising and South Hampshire Rapid Transit.

2. Local Bus Service Support - Action in 2005/06

2.1 The County Council set its budget for the support of subsidised bus services for 2005/06 at the same level as 2004/05, adjusted for inflation. Regrettably, despite continued increases in funding in recent years, this budget remains under pressure due to sharp cost increases in the bus industry. The amount of funding available is not sufficient to meet the costs of all supported local bus services in the county. This means that financial support for some bus services or parts of services is being withdrawn.

2.2 In order to maximise value for money for the county's taxpayers, the routes which have been nominated for withdrawal are those which are used least or those which cost the most per passenger to support.

3. Passenger Transport Strategy

3.1 The Passenger Transport Strategy will form an integral part of the second Local Transport Plan (LTP) to be submitted to Government in March 2006. The proposed LTP needs to be realistic and so recognise that the car will be the dominant mode of travel for the foreseeable future and that modal shift will only come when congestion increases significantly.

3.2 A balanced set of measures are proposed to improve transport and so enhance quality of life by:

(i) improving accessibility to services;

(ii) tackling congestion;

(iii) improving transport-related air quality; and

(iv) improving road safety.

Accessibility

3.3 The LTP is also realistic about accessibility. The Government has provided an accessibility auditing database, known as Accession. This aims to model theoretical journey times to key services by a combination of walking and public transport. However initial results must be viewed with caution due to problems with unreliable data and software faults. Some areas that are theoretically inaccessible by public transport may have limited problems due to high levels of car ownership. Equally, some areas may have worse accessibility than suggested by Accession, because of timetabling problems, cost or lack of information.

3.4 The LTP approach takes a more holistic and realistic approach to accessibility than required by the Government. In particular, the LTP:

(i) considers accessibility to a wider range of services;

(ii) investigates actual rather than theoretical accessibility; and

(iii) considers non-transport measures to improve accessibility, such as bringing services to people.

3.5 The role of scheduled or demand responsive bus services needs to be carefully judged as these can be very expensive to provide to remote locations or for infrequently used services such as hospital visits.

3.6 The Passenger Transport Strategy is therefore evolving as more information becomes available. It is intended that the results of pilot studies will be available to inform the development of the full LTP.

New Approach to Service Provision

3.7 To best match service provision to passenger needs, work is progressing with consultants on an access and demand model which enables the best mix of conventional, flexible and community-based transport to be delivered. The model is initially being developed as a pilot in the Basingstoke and Alton areas. It will assist in answering some fundamental questions including:

(i) Are travel needs being met?

(ii) Is the current allocation of funds correct?

(iii) Does it provide best value for money?

3.8 The model will also enable the assessment of proposals aimed at modal shift and offer solutions to the accessibility problems identified by Accession. It will help optimise service provision and help offset rising cost pressures whilst providing a framework for strategic network development in the future.

4. South Hampshire Rapid Transit (SHRT)

4.1 Funding approval is still awaited from Central Government, following the refusal by the Secretary of State to fund any of the current light rail schemes in Manchester, Leeds and South Hampshire in 2004 and more recently on Merseyside. This statement was made on the grounds of cost and the promoters of SHRT (Portsmouth and Hampshire Councils) have sought to reduce the cost base and proposed reductions in the scope of the scheme proposal, whilst still maintaining the high ratio of benefit to cost. This favourable level of benefit is by far the greatest of any contemporary light rail scheme, but a final decision on any of the schemes is still awaited. Planning powers are due to expire within the coming year, but in the absence of a decision from Government on this vital scheme, work cannot proceed on land purchase, advance works, or even the feasibility of less satisfactory options.

5. Bus Infrastructure

5.1 Works to provide Real-Time Passenger Information at bus stops between Fareham and Gosport are reported in the agenda item Progress Update on Schemes in the Capital Programme.

6. Rail Franchising

6.1 Trains between Cardiff/Bristol and Portsmouth/Brighton, serving Fareham, are currently operated under the Wessex franchise. The re-franchising process, initiated by the Strategic Rail Authority, has now passed to the Department for Transport's (DfT) Rail Group. The present franchise expires in March 2006 and will be replaced by services operated under the much larger new Greater Western franchise. Bids are now with the DfT, with announcement of the successful bidder expected in December.

6.2 The timetable specification for the new franchise proposed little change to services through Fareham and from Portsmouth. However, the County Council has made representations to both the DfT and the bidders that the quality of service be improved, including providing more seating capacity, greater comfort and improved punctuality.

7. Impact Assessments

7.1 This report provides a position statement only, therefore an impact assessment in terms of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act has not been undertaken.

Recommendation

That this report be noted.

609/AB