The performance of the Department for Transport - Fleet News

10policies on education, health and wealth creation. 44 Taking integration “within andbetween different transport types”, it is clear that, outside London, substantial difficultiesremain. The Government is able to exert considerable influence over rail operators throughthe franchise system and other mechanisms. The principal difficulty lies with bus services,most of which are privately planned and operated, and the problems we have pointed to inprevious reports. 45 Whilst private operators have controlled operating costs and removedsome of the revenue risk from local authorities, the deregulated system has made it almostimpossible to achieve co-ordinated services, including routes, timetables or ticketingarrangements in most parts of the country. This is despite the considerable publicexpenditure on bus services by central and local government—amounting to some £2.5billion per year. 4624. We note with interest the lesson drawn by the Secretary of State for Transport:“[…] as I know only too well now from my own experience, bringing aboutintegration requires strong governmental action—that is not necessarily centralgovernment; it could be and often will much more appropriately be localgovernment, hence integrated transport authorities and the important role that theyplay, but it will not happen spontaneously, nor is it likely to happen simply byspecifying things in contracts. That can get you a certain length of the way but in factthere has to be a public authority which is responsible, which takes integrationseriously and has the necessary powers to bring it about.” 4725. In London a high degree of transport integration has been achieved as a result of thepowers and resources available to the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL). Bus, tubeand local rail services and fares are specified by the Mayor and TfL who also control thestrategic road network and the congestion charge scheme. These comprehensive powersare not available to local authorities outside London. We are well aware that circumstancesin London are different to the rest of the UK. The scale of London’s public transportnetwork, its large resident and visitor populations, the higher levels of economic growthand resources, low car-ownership, 48 and other factors mean that simply conferringLondon-style powers on other parts of the UK would not necessarily lead to similaroutcomes. Nevertheless, the gap between transport integration in London and in the rest ofThis is an embargoed advance copy.Not to be published in any form until00:01 on Thursday 4 Marchthe UK is growing and a better way must be found, particularly in the metropolitan areasand major cities, to improve integration of local transport. The Local Transport Act 2008 is44 Department for Transport, A new deal for transport: better for everyone, Cm 3950, 1998, p 845 See Transport Committee, The draft Local Transport Bill and the Transport Innovation Fund, Ninth Report of Session2006–07 HC 692; and Transport Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2007−08, Ticketing and Concessionary Travel onPublic Transport, HC 84, para 86.46 Department for Transport, Annual Report and Resource Accounts 2008–09, HC 454, July 2009, pp 28–38. Thiscomprises concessionary travel (£1 bn) , local authority support for local bus services (£1 bn), Bus Services OperatorGrant (£0.4 bn) and Rural Bus Grant and Kickstart (£0.01 bn). In addition, the Integrated Transport Block Grantwithin the local transport plan expenditure will include schemes to assist buses and bus users.47 Q 10248 In 2008, 43% of households in London boroughs had no car compared with 32% in metropolitan areas and muchlower rates in other parts of Great Britain. Department for Transport, Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2009 Edition,November 2009, p166.