the common room
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by George Wilmot Senior Lecturer in Transport Studies, University of London.
Rural bus services
TRANSPORT EXAMINERS are always keen on asking questions on current problems and one of the hardy annuals is the provision of rural bus services. These services have had the spotlight of attention for more than 10 years but it has been intensified in recent -months.
The problem is easily stated financially, the majority of rural bus services are heavy loss-makers, but meastwed in social terms their value is considerable taking into account the hardship which widespread withdrawals would cause to rural populations. According to the 1965 National Travel Survey, 41.7 per cent of ho'useholds remain without their own private motor transport. This figure is for the whole 'country and it must be borne in mind that car ownership in rural areas (overall 0.72 per household according to the Travel Survey) is substantially higher than in urban areas Where the corresponding figure is 0.48 cars per household. Moreover, in households owning one car, the vehicle is likely to be taken to work by the head of the household; thus it will not be available to the housewife for shopping. A significant, although declining, proportion of the rural population therefore remains dependent on the bus for transport, When the Jack Committee reviewed trends in rural bus services in 1959, the problem had existed for a long time. At that time it could be seen that the traditional means of maintaining rural services by crosssubsidiz4tion from more profitable services was becoming ineffective. Rural routes were demanding increasing financial support as usage fell because of the growth of car ownership; but the profitable services were also suffering from declining traffic and increasing costs, thus there was little fat left over to support ailing rural routes. Rural operators awaited action on the recommendations of the Jack Committee, whose report of 1961 came out in favour of direct financial assistance for these services. Little was done. Operators made what economies they could by the extension of one-man operation and inevitable service reductions, the latter giving rise to the vicious circle of further loss of traffic leading to further reductions.
The Jack Committee recommendations
-were finally adopted in the Transport Act of 1968 whereby Local Authorities were given
powers under Section 34 to: "Give assistance to any other person, by way of a grant, loan or both, for the purpose of securing the provision, improvement or continuance of a bus service . . for the benefit of persons residing in rural areas."
The system began slowly, pending the preparation of the Department of the Environment's official circular issued in November 1970 which gave guidance to local authorities wishing to make use of their new subsidy powers. However, in September 1970, the National Bus Company publicly stated that it had instructed its subsidiary companies to reduce the burden of loss-making rural services by announcing their withdrawal after reasonable notice, This statement was closely followed by a similar announcement from the Passenger Vehicle Operators' Association, 'representing the independent operators. The message to local authorities was abundantly clear-use your powers under Section 34, or face widespread withdrawal of uneconomic rural bus services.
This is the background to the present situation-next week I shall examine some of the „ways in which public transport facilities might be maintained to rural communities.