Bristol bus services are under threat thanks to council cuts
The Institute of Directors (IoD) this week welcomed the announcement that funding and decision-making on local major transport schemes is being devolved to new Local Transport Bodies from 2015, giving businesses more of a say on key projects in their region and speeding up approval of vital work to ease road and rail bottlenecks.
According to the mayoral campaign Bristol Manifesto, transport congestion is set to cost the Bristol economy £600m per year by 2016. As recent runner up in the European Green Capital contest and the UK’s first cycling city, moving towards a more sustainable and effective multi-modal transport system is a big issue for the city council.
Last night, exasperated by First Bus, Bristol City Council voted to opt for a Quality Contract which allows local authorities to set minimum requirements for private operators. Typically, however, there seems to be some confusion over how much better off this will make us as Transport Minister Norman Baker has stated that by opting for a Quality Contract, ‘better bus areas’ such as Bristol will not be entitled to tax breaks currently handed to private operators.
Executive member for transport Cllr Tim Kent thinks this is a ‘mistake’ (shades of The Thick Of It?). If not, what the Government is offering with one hand it is taking away with the other.
Meanwhile, mayoral hopeful Jon Rogers is pledging that he will introduce a flat (single) fare of £1.50 for bus travel across Bristol. Sounds great, and oh so simple, but of course he will have to work within the confines of the aforementioned Quality Contract and the Joint Local Transport Plan, as well as the permutations of working with neighbouring authorities, existing concessionary fares, peak and off peak travel and so on and on.
While the current bus provision certainly needs to be shaken up and some decent competition allowed to enter the marketplace, I think we’re getting distracted. What all the mayoral candidates need to be talking about is an effective integrated system, taking into account that most people use more than one mode of transport – including walking. Just because you ride a bike doesn’t mean you never drive a car or take a train.
Business travel needs can be totally different to how you choose or need to get about when you’re not at work. We need a system that takes into account a muti-modal population that needs a choice of ways to get around the city and its neighbouring areas easily, cost-effectively and safely, taking into account other issues such as decent suburban rail links, parking, congestion and reliability – not just how well the buses run.
Karen White is Vice Chair of the Bristol IoD and Director, JBP PR and Parliamentary Affairs
The problem is that politicians have short term career prospects. What the point of giving your support for a twenty year tram scheme. They only look at solutions which benefit their short term election prospects so we only ever get soundbites and snapshot ideas. It's a shame that the people who have the power to make things happen can;t think about longer term legacies. A tram scheme for Bristol would have been amazing. Instead we have a city choked with overpriced buses.
I waitied over 1 hour for a number 20 from St Johns Lane this morning… I have been late for work almost every day for 2 weeks because of the god awful service provided by 1st bus….. it should be run like pizza delivery… if it's late… it's free!!! FIRST BUS… SORT IT OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
second class service for a first class city
…"giving businesses more of a say…"
Why? Shouldn't the views of residents carry more weight? After all they have the vote.
A political mandate at a city-wide level to improve bus services in Bristol and reduce fares would be an important first step and would follow the lead of Ken Livingstone's successful reinvigoration of London Buses. Other strategic transport infrastructure like rail and highway schemes are probably necessary in the longer term and individual schemes should be considered, but Jon Rogers has taken an impressive lead in the debate. This article is an important contribution as it represents a business view, but I think it is a little short sighted and negative about a useful political debate.