Scrutiny Board ( Transforming Services) Session Three ;24 November - - PDF document

Scrutiny Board – (Transforming Services)

Session Three ;24 November 2005

Subject

The Procedures and Consultation Arrangements which Bus Companies are required to follow when they wish to Change Bus Timetables or Bus Routes. Inquiry subject to Terms of Reference adopted by the Board on Thursday 29 September 2005

Introduction

On behalf of Scholes Residents we thank the Chair, Councillor Grahame, and the Scrutiny Board for inviting us to submit evidence to this Inquiry. As a time saving measure the written submission has been prepared by Mr George Hall

• n behalf of the Deputation to Leeds City Council and the “Residents Working Group” of

Scholes Village who have led the effort for a review, and attended the Public meetings to discuss this issue. The last Public Meeting attended by 228 residents provided the mandate for us to address this inquiry .Should members require clarification or questions answered we will endeavour to respond. Our community recognise and thank the Council, its Executive Board particularly Councillor Andrew Carter. We also appreciate the interest of lead members or the Labour Group, Councillors Gruen and Lyons also the Office of the Traffic Commissioner which has been most helpful. Our greatest and special thanks are reserved for our Leeds City Council Ward Members Councillors Castle, Shelbrooke and Proctor for their continued support and encouragement.

• The object of our attendance at this inquiry is to be constructive, within the terms of
• reference. It is clear that the wider “Bus Industry” implications were addressed by the

Parliamentary Select Committee which has significant import. We ask the Scrutiny Board to consider the conclusions and recommendations of the select committee which are apprehended. We have to hand a file of information to substantiate other assertions which are made in our evidence. Consideration was given to providing this as an appendix; however advice was to provide this in written form to members requesting the data. We will provide a background to the problems that have and still exist locally. The problems caused by the lack of consultation and perceived areas of responsibility, if not

• accountability. These include all sections of Local Government including our Parish

Council the Bus Industry and its operators First Group (Leeds). The Scholes Community is not unique; in experiencing Public Transport difficulties. The Transport issues and particularly “Bus Problems” are well documented in the local

• press. Members here and of the larger City council will have received complaints from
• constituents. It is our earnest desire to ensure that you have the information which

allows conclusions to be reached and recommendations to provide guidance which should follow, from our experiences, in future Page 1

The Scrutiny Board already have the report of the Director of Development dated the 21 September 2005 which included notes provided by Metro. With your permission I would ask that the following factual errors need to be corrected The Director of Development report.

• Paragraph 3.2 states a number of Public Meetings have been held regarding this

matter …. The Fact is two Public meetings have been held, the second of which was not attended by Metro, First or our Parish Council

• Paragraph 3.3. The working group have no knowledge of the survey the
• perator proposes to conduct. What is meant by “to review the position once it

has become established” ?. We are now almost five months into the new service, how much longer is needed?

• The Scrutiny Board may show concern and note Paragraph 4.1 then ask why no

consultations were conducted as a result of the Deputation to council. As a minimum we would have expected the report to include the views of our Ward

• Councillors. In this regard we welcome the latest six monthly report of Councillor

Shelbrooke, up to May 2005, who states ”I continue to work for a regular Bus Service for my constituents”

• Paragraph 7.2 of The Directors report states that a number of issues remain

unresolved, which is correct, however to the best of our knowledge all dialogue with Metro and The Bus Operator has ceased and no further meetings are planned with us. Indeed an invitation to both the Passenger Transport Authority and the Passenger Transport Executive to attend our second public meeting was accepted then only to be rejected three hours before the meeting. Metro Notes-Appendix. As contained in Scrutiny Board Agenda 29 September 2005

• In the background notes provided by Metro they indicate that the Public meeting

which Metro and First did attend was held at “Barwick” This is not correct, the meeting was at Scholes and more that 200 people attended that meeting This is important as Barwick residents were not invited to be present,for reasons best known to others The issue regarding a link service with Scholes is considered necessary by some residents of Barwick as indeed it is to Scholes

• village. There has been no Consultation with Barwick . Metro notes also

indicates the claim by First” that the increased journey time would result in complaints” from Barwick residents Can this statement be justified? In view of the lack of consultation on this issue: We can only surmise that the personal view

• f one Barwick Ward Parish Councillor, attending a “focus group meeting is the

basis of such a claim, hardly conclusive!

• The Links to Seacroft and Crossgates are hourly in both directions, which we see

as requiring improvement offering a 30 minute service; indeed this could be done even with the existing service. We have made suggestions that remain practical and in our view sensible.

• Metro states links to St James Hospital and Barwick “can be made”. This is not
• disputed. Two Buses would be required and therefore two fares within a half mile
• r so distance. It is fair to question if the use of two buses is a responsible

argument? After all we can get to London or Blackpool by using two buses or even the bus and the rail network, again two fares would be required. Metro are

• n record as stating that “above rate of inflation fares lead to a reduction in

patronage”. We would argue that requiring two services and the associated fare charge does much the same furthermore encourages private car use. Page 2

The Factual Background – relating to Consultation 1) Neither Metro nor First notified or consulted Barwick in Elmet and Scholes Parish Council or Residents of Scholes prior to the Service/Timetable Changes of the 30 Jan 2005. The authority for this statement is substantiated by residents approaching the Parish Council, who basically said “they had no knowledge of the service changes”. Residents were told any action must be taken by them individually .This caused great concern, it may be said anger, and the relationship between the Parish Council and its parishioners remains “Severely” damaged. 2) Ward members were approached and letters sent to them, primarily in view of the

• above. It is understood that Ward Councillors had not been formally notified by Metro or
• First. With the assistance of our City Councillors and letters from myself our Parish

Council were encouraged to call a public meeting which Metro and the Bus Operator agreed to attend. 3) The First Public Meeting held 22 March 2005 in Scholes Manor House More than 200 residents were told by the First Bus Operator that the decision to make frequency changes were for commercial reasons, essentially profit motivated. The Commercial Director gave reasons for commercial viability was to replace the ageing bus fleet and provide “low floor “buses. Members are respectfully invited to consider this considering the Margin of Profit made from the WYPTE area. 17% is the figure quoted at Paragraph 4.4 of section 4 in the Bus Strategy consultation documents. It is noted in the “select committee report that, outside London 30% of operator income is from the public purse, these being from the Bus Service Operators Grant;Concessionary Fares Compensation and payments for tendered services. Are we receiving Best service value? The Metro Spokesperson effectively pointed to deregulation and the Transport Act 2000, which many of those attending failed to understand, Effectively Metro said “sorry there is nothing we can do”. It is not unreasonable to question if this was consultation, it was certainly communication albeit poor which was not well received by any of those present 4) Resulting from the above Public meeting, a “focus group” consisting of Metro,First Bus,Barwick-in Elmet and Scholes Parish Council and Cllr Castle attended a further meeting at Scholes Manor House on the 3 May. Only three Parishioners were invited to

• attend. The number Parishioners were later, reluctantly, increased to five, although six

actually attended as one arrived uninvited as a protest. There was the considerable displeasure of the whole community at the lack of “bus user” residents being invited to represent their views.It has to be said that the five village delegates left the “focus group meeting feeling that they had been “talked at” rather than spoken to by the Bus Operators team .It may be helpful if some communication skill training and politeness was applied in future. Page 3

5) A second meeting of the Focus Group was held on the 21 June. The Bus Operator presented the proposals to give the village a 30 minute service to Leeds by means of two circular services .This would however still mean only an hourly service to the shopping areas at Seacroft Centre and Crossgates. The proposal had more enthusiastic support from the Parish Council than that of the Residents or Councillor Shelbrooke. Nevertheless it was thought that Metro and First Bus appreciated the resolution from the initial “Public Meeting” meeting. This was that “the village would be consulted regarding the proposals made by the operator and the public view fed back to Metro 6) A Second Public Meeting was held in the Village Hall at Scholes on 18 July this was attended by 228 residents and Ward Councillors unfortunately Barwick in Elmet and Scholes Parish Council were not present. Metro and First Bus Leeds chose NOT to attend this meeting. This was most disappointing and caused great displeasure to all those who attended. Residents unanimously adopted a resolution requiring the bus issue to be brought to scrutiny through Ward Members Conclusions A) It would appear that WYPTE have a consultation procedure, which meets government guidance, but this was not followed in this instance. Ward Members had not been advised of timetable changes, neither had our Parish Council. B) The Bus Partnership Forum publishes a “Code of Conduct” and as First Bus is a member they should honour that code although not mandatory. We refer to this again

• n Page seven of our evidence

C) No further meetings have been arranged and dialogue on the issues referred to in the Director of Developments report is clearly not taking place this is disappointing. Recommendation Consultation procedures for both Metro and First must be more robust and strictly adhered to. The minimum criteria being the code of conduct set out by the Bus Industry. Elected members at every level of government should be consulted. The Public generally could be notified by “public notice” press announcement in the local paper and given the opportunity to object or raise their concerns with their elected representative who may take the issue up on their constituent’s behalf. Page 4

The Route Network and value for money Many of the routes East of Leeds and elsewhere appear duplicated and often add to

• congestion. Each numbered service competes for patronage with a “similar service” that

means some are categorised as not being commercially viable To give two examples, (1) Several Buses can be seen operating on Austhorpe Road

• Crossgates. Four of these are on route to Leeds and the timings are such that often

three can be seen behind each other. (2) Particular to Scholes is that the 68a service competes with the 64 Service to Barwick and Aberford. Bus timings are such that the 64 service collects passengers to Crossgates and the reverse journey to the detriment 68a service. Patronage loss may be adjudged to affect the “commercial” viability. Setting aside the fact that these services could and should be combined. The reason the operator states this is not done is, allegedly, running times. We believe is argument is unsustainable. Our reasoning is given that integrating the service would add 6 minutes (a total of 37 minutes.) The current 68a service is according to Metro 42 minutes from Scholes to Leeds. The route suggested would not be as “circulatory” as is the present 68 or 68a service. The existing service could be operated between Seacroft and Leeds. Improving the

• peration through the district areas of the Ironwoods, Gipton and Burmantofts would be

the direct result It is also a fact that if the Scholes bus service was integrated with the Barwick service the following advantages would occur. a) the Running time to Leeds would be less than the current services b) the service would be direct and utilise the £20 million infrastructure cost of the Leeds Guided Bus system(government figures) thereby giving added value for money and benefit against the capital cost investment c) One less service would operate through Crossgates – giving less congestion and a reduction in the competition for passengers d) The service outbound would allow Scholes residents to gain access to services passing through Barwick to Wetherby and Garforth without the additional fare between Coronation Tree and Main Street Barwick e) Even if we discounted the additional fare referred to in “d” above the waiting times for connecting at the 64 service at the Coronation tree would be removed f) The number 5 service, which is currently a subsidised service would not be required and be a saving on the public purse. g) The linking of villages , utilising an existing service would give a 30 minute service to and from Crossgates and a potential for Seacroft Centre h) The current social separation between Scholes and Barwick would be resolved. This would allow Doctor, Dental, School and social intercourse between sporting clubs to be enhanced The foregoing would be consistent with the Accessibility and Availability as projected in the 2006-2011 Draft Bus Strategy. Seeking a 30 minute service to support local centres is recognised at Paragraph 3.14 also Paragraph 6.5 and 6.6 respectively. The Bus Operator should not be allowed to determine routes or networks which fail to meet planning policy and strategies. As a footnote a more frequent service would improve our choice and “Quality of life” Page 5

Conclusions The current service has been put in place acts like a “sticking plaster” over the difficulties which the Bus operator found themselves in. It seeks to provide an inadequate service for commercial gain. The Bus operator has failed to give a satisfactory service and still draws subsidy from the public purse by not considering how best resolve the evening and Sunday service. Recommendation A major review of Routes and cost effectiveness which would provide both user and environmental benefits The Complaints Procedure The Leeds City Council has a complaints procedure which is a model of excellence. Scholes residents have found that letters and telephone complaints, to both Metro and the Bus Operator, have not been dealt with satisfactorily. No acknowledgement or follow up letters have been received. No advice has been offered suggesting when or where to take the issue further if they are dissatisfied. “Ensuring Complaints are dealt with to common standards is essential in making bus usage “attractive to all”, this is a Metro

• aspiration. Metro Market Research and analysis acknowledges that operational

complaints have increased to 50%in 2004 .It must also be noted that only 54% of Bus users (200 million service trips) are satisfied with local bus services ( paragraph 9.4.5 Bus strategy

consultation data). It may be concluded 46% are dissatisfied which equates to 92 million

service trips in the Metro area. The Bus users of Scholes have now been advised to register their complaints which concern punctuality and reliability to the Traffic Commissioner. He has powers of enforcement providing the issues are within the criteria of Directive 4, or the obligations contained in the VOSA license application These are primarily financial penalties as the Traffic Commissioner has a shortage of staff to police or investigate. His Compliance Department invites the operators to respond to complaints. It is hardly likely that operators will hold their hands up to

• failures. We have experienced these ourselves, and excuses are always forthcoming.

We are told by the Compliance Section delays in receiving a prompt response from the

• perators do occur. The Board may care to ascertain how many financial penalties have

been applied, if indeed any have. In short does this sanction work? Conclusions The current procedures operated by Metro and the Bus Operator, are more than a little

• wanting. We would like to know the reason why?

Recommendation Both parties review their procedures and institute a robust and customer friendly response to complaints, as these normally provide the basis to improve service provision. Page 6

The Bus Operators From the perspective of Scholes Residents the Bus operators are the First Bus Group. Our comments therefore relate soley to this operator. First Group are members of the Bus Partnership Forum. The Forum brings together senior representatives from the Bus Industry, Central and Local Government. This includes the Passenger Transport Executive Group of which Metro is a member. Information is attached confirming the “Code of Conduct on service and Stability” Page seven of the code is of great importance as it details to whom and when consultation should take place. It is clear that the operator did not honour the obligations

• f the code, and members are invited to ask why?.

The Director of Development report dated 21 September. Paragraph 2.8, implies that there is no requirement under the current framework for operators to consult or adhere to a code of practice. If this were to be correct why have a code in the first place? It is acknowledged that the word”statutory” may have been inadvertently omitted prior to “requirement”. Not withstanding this, the Board are asked to consider correspondence from Mr Mark Lambert of the Department for Transport in London. An e-mail from Mr Lambert, dated 25 April, is significant for it places a responsibility with the W PTE to raise breaches of the “Code of Conduct” at forum. Members are invited to ask the PTE if this has been done on this or any other occasions. For the information of this board, Mr Lambert verbally advised us that the Bus Partnership Forum would “take a very dim view” of reported failures to honour the commitment given by “signing up to the codes of conduct” – First Group are signatories. In the interest of time we cannot to detail the work of the “Task and Finish Group” report provided by the Bus Partnership Forum. The report is extensive and identifies the way forward as seen by the forum. Arguably if the operator treats the report with the same disdain it plainly lacks credibility. Our few meetings which have been held with the operator have at best been strained. We conclude that the voluntary partnership between Metro and First, should this be the correct terminology, is rather biased in favour of the operator. There is some, but little attempt by the operator to” Understanding the Customers Needs” not withstanding First Group produced a paper for the Bus Partnership Forum which carries that title. The question of a “statutory” partnership has some yet again limited improvement over the existing situation. We do not need to explain this to “Scrutiny” as it has already been done both in the Bus Strategy Consultation Documentation and briefly during the boards October hearing session or should it be said the papers provided by Metro. The Bus Company has failed miserably to operate a satisfactory complaints procedure. Conclusions A high price is being extracted from customers for a poor service that does not meet

• expectations. The agreed “code of conduct” - Consultation process is not adhered to.

Their Complaints procedure leaves much to be desired Recommendations Metro report the operator to the Bus Partnership forum for breaches of the Stability code Page 7

The Responsibility The failure to accept responsibility “implying it is not up to me” is a major concern to the public perception especially when ultimately elected members say “there is nothing we can do, it is the law”. Regrettably this has and continues to be said by officers and

• thers on this occasion. We, the general public, desire accountability from every tier of

government, Parish, Local, Regional and National We must moderate the words deregulation we are where we are and time has moved

• n. The Transport 2000 Act may be poor, and in our view it is, for to some degree it

negates National Planning Policy, Regional guidance and the Unitary Development policies enshrined in the Local Transport plan. The restrictions in the 2000 act still offer the opportunity for change as can be seen in the Government white paper of June 2004, “The Future of Transport”, Government guidance appears to be more receptive to

• change. We ask you and your Local Authority partners who make up Metro to accept

the responsibility to challenge the Secretary of State, if necessary through the courts singularly or working with the PTE executive groups such as the West Midlands. Members may consider that there has been progress in recent months. Certainly comments made by a junior government minister, the Director General of Metro, together with Bus Strategy review all suggest that there could be moves to more accountability by some form of regulation. These are very welcome developments and are supported by us if the “Mechanisms for Delivery “of the Bus Strategy are followed

• through. Please note only a “Quality Contact” meets the “Can Do” criteria shown in the

strategy Unfortunately the speed of progress is slow and does not encourage improvements to the system in the immediate future. We are told that it may take as much as three years to implement “Quality Bus Contracts. Any assistance that the Council can provide would be more than appreciated by us and all the Citizens of Leeds, who express their concerns about transport and bus service provision almost every evening in the local press. We have drawn conclusions, above, and have suggested recommendations; related to specific issues. We respectfully ask that these are noted and considered for inclusion in the final report of the Scrutiny Board (Transforming Services). Page 8