PAPER C
Committee: ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE
Date: 26 JUNE 2002
Title: RURAL BUS SUBSIDY GRANT
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
SUMMARY/PURPOSE
To inform Members of the processes leading to service procurement through utilisation of Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) in 2002.
BACKGROUND
1. In February 2001, the DTLR (now DFT) announced levels of RBSG that would be available for the Isle of Wight for the next three financial years. These amounts were
2001/02 £203,377
2002/03 £232,781
2003/04 £237,681
2. Accordingly, Members last year agreed to award contracts to Southern Vectis and Wightbus for 2001/02 to the value in total of £203,000. These contract awards also had the effect of committing £90,000 of the 2002/03 grant and £70,000 of the 2003/04 grant to ongoing service provision.
3. The sum of £142,781 therefore remains available for purchase of services through RBSG in 2002/03 and £167,681 in 2003/04.
4. Following a wide-ranging consultation exercise in February this year, the results of which were reported to Members of this Committee on 24 April, tenders were invited for services that were very similar to those which had proven popular with passengers in 2001/02. Mindful of an increase in grant that would be available in 2002/03 and 2003/04, tenders were also invited for a small number of additional services in line with consultation responses.
5. Details of the level of annual passenger patronage for existing services being considered from further subsidy via RBSG for 2002/03 onwards are provided as Appendix 1 to this report.
6. Also included within Appendix 1 are estimates of likely numbers of passenger journeys that may be made on services for which a demand had been noted in the consultation process, and for which tenders were also invited.
APPLICATION OF FUNDING IN 2002/03
7. It is imperative that the Executive can agree which tenders to accept at their meeting due to be held on 2 July 2002 for the following reasons:
a) So that there can be a smooth transition in service provision for the benefit of the passengers using the services.
b) That there be sufficient time to ensure incorporation of the details of the services in timetables and other publicity material.
c) To ensure compliance with the bus service registration period required by the Traffic Commissioner.
d) That there can be a reasonable mobilisation period for the operators.
8. Accordingly, Members of this Select Committee are asked to consider the options arising from the tendering process.
9. Tenders for individual contracts were received from only three operators, with certain operators bidding for only a small number of the contracts and some of the prospective contracts receiving no tenders whatsoever.
10. If Members were to choose to “shop” for contracts on an individual tender basis, then this would result in loss of services in comparison to current levels, since tenders for individual contacts are considerably higher than the value offered by a Southern Vectis Group Tender that has also been submitted.
11. In order to continue to provide all of these services which have proven popular with passengers to date, and to do this within available budgets, consideration can only be given to a Group Tender received from Southern Vectis. This Group Tender for a two year term also makes allowances for the addition of a small number of new services that have been identified as desirable during the consultation process.
12. Acceptance of the Southern Vectis Group Tender would enable the following services to continue:
a) Evening services on Mondays to Saturdays on the Newport-Wootton-Ryde route.
b) Early morning journeys from Bembridge to Ryde and from Ventnor to Newport on Mondays to Saturdays.
c) Evening services on Mondays to Saturdays on the Ventnor-Wroxall-Newport route.
d) Sunday evening journeys on the Ryde to Ventnor route.
e) Evening services on Mondays to Saturdays on the Newport-Brighstone-Freshwater route.
f) Daily evening services on the Ryde to Seaview and Nettlestone route.
g) The half-hourly frequency on Newport Town routes on Mondays to Fridays between 0900 and 1400.
13. Additional services that would be provided as part of the Southern Vectis Group tender are as follows (please note that 13 (e) is to be introduced only from October 2003):
a) An hourly frequency in the morning and early afternoon on Mondays to Saturdays between Bembridge, Whitecliff Bay and Sandown. In part this will replace some current commercially-provided timings that will otherwise be withdrawn by Southern Vectis from 29 September.
b) Additional early Sunday morning services on the Cowes-Newport-Ryde route intended to benefit shop workers.
c) An earlier Sunday morning service from Freshwater and Yarmouth to Newport intended to benefit shop workers.
d) Additional Sunday daytime journeys on the Newport-East Cowes route that would result in an half-hourly frequency between 0900 and 1800.
e) Provision of an evening service on Newport town routes from October 2003 onwards.
14. However, there are some other consequences of acceptance of the Southern Vectis Group tender. These are that:
a) there would be an overall reduction in the total number of services via Yaverland, although the actual impact would not be too great since a regular hourly frequency would be established instead of the assortment of irregular timings currently offered in the mornings and early afternoons.
b) As a consequence of the withdrawal of the commercial services referred to in 13(a), the route between Bembridge, St Helens, Nettlestone and Ryde on Service 12 will no longer be served outside of the morning and afternoon workers and shoppers peak hour journeys.
c) The route of Newport town services would be modified so as to no longer serve Sainsbury’s store site.
15. In respect of the withdrawal of services in the off-peak on Service 12, Southern Vectis has stated the following:
“The main innovation in the combination bid (the Group Tender) is the replacement of all conventional buses (in the off-peak) between Nettlestone and St Helens. Given both the fragmented demand over the whole day and the perceived desirability of linking services with St Helens, this would seem the ideal site for a demand-responsive action, perhaps using a local taxi operator. Southern Vectis proposes that responsibility for this rests with Seaview and Nettlestone Parish Council. As part of the combination bid, Southern Vectis proposes to transfer £5,000 per annum to the Parish Council to assist with the development and operation of such a service.”
It should be noted that this £5,000 transfer is not of Rural Bus Subsidy Grant, but is a transfer from Southern Vectis funds.
It is hoped that more detail in respect of this proposal will be available at the Committee meeting.
CONCLUSION
16. The availability of RBSG has once again raised expectations that many more additional services can be provided. However, simply to renew existing successful RBSG services will account for the vast majority of funding in 2002/03 and 2003/04.
17. Only the acceptance of the Southern Vectis Group Tender for a two year period can ensure current levels of service are maintained and improved upon.
18. Rural Bus Service Grant is but one of a number of funding services that are becoming available and it is likely that many of the demands which cannot be met by RBSG may be met by Parish transport Grant, Rural Transport Partnership funding or by Rural Bus Challenge.
RECOMMENDATION That the Select Committee recommends to the Executive the acceptance of the Southern Vectis Group tender for a two year period for £142,000 in 2002/03 and £167,000 in 2003/04. |
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Tender documents.
Contact Point: A A Morris, ☎ 823780
M J A FISHER
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment Services