Agenda item

The Committee has requested a report on Future Bus Regulation Options ahead of its consideration by Cabinet.

It has invited Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, to present the report and has also invited Paul Fermer, Director of Environment, Highways & Transport, Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, Hannah Battye, Head of Place Shaping, and Katharine Broomfield, Technical Lead – Bus Service Improvement,  to attend and to answer the Committee’s questions.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

The Committee had invited Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, to present the report and invited Paul Fermer, Director of Environment, Highways & Transport, and Katharine Broomfield, Technical Lead – Bus Service Improvement, to attend and to answer the Committee’s questions.

The Cabinet member for Transport Management introduced the Future Bus Regulations options item explaining that, in anticipation of a general election and possible changes in government policy, the Council had commissioned a report to explore different models of bus ownership. He noted that the Government had introduced a bus bill, which was progressing through Parliament and affected the process for applying for various bus ownership models. Four options were considered, and the consultants were tasked with investigating each rather than recommending a specific one. The preferred option, Enhanced Partnership Plus (EP+), was chosen mainly due to timing, as franchising would take too long to implement before the Council's expected reorganisation. He emphasised that the decision was based on common sense and referenced the importance of local context, relationships with bus operators, and the fact that congestion remained the biggest challenge to improving bus services.

The Committee raised the following questions and comments:

·       How efficiencies and savings could be passed on to bus users, especially focusing on young people and those in rural areas. The Director of Environment and Highways stated that, whilst many services started or ended in Oxford and faced congestion challenges, the Council aimed to strengthen its working relationship with bus companies through EP+. This approach would allow the Council to negotiate for benefits such as improved ticketing arrangements and reinvestment of profits, ensuring that efficiencies could be shared with passengers, including those in rural communities.

·       What the impact of devolution would be and how the timing of the Council’s proposals related to the creation of mayoral strategic authorities. The Director of Environment and Highways explained that the recommendation to pursue EP+ would have been made regardless of local government reorganisation, as it did not prevent future franchising by a combined authority. It was advised that franchising was a lengthy and costly process, making it unrealistic to begin before the Council’s expected reorganisation. It was also noted that the incoming mayor of a strategic authority would need to review bus models across a potentially wider area, which would be a complex task.

On rural services, it was stated that demand-responsive transport had been trialled but had not been successful in Oxfordshire, though it worked in some other areas; the Council continued to subsidise rural services and support community transport.

·       About the possibility of multi-service tickets, including cross-modal options for train and bus users, and whether profits from highly profitable routes could be reinvested to better serve local communities. The Director of Environment and Highways confirmed that multi-operator ticketing already existed through the “my bus” ticket, which had been popular but created financial challenges for the Council due to the way subsidies were calculated. It was also explained that the current Enhanced Partnership included a commitment for operators to reinvest savings from public funding back into the network, though the wording was loose; the EP+ would aim to strengthen this commitment and clarify expectations for reinvestment, including the potential to support routes that better serve local communities.

·       Why the report appeared negative towards franchising, when this stance did not reflect the evidence in the supporting documents, and suggested that the recommendation seemed targeted towards the EP+ model. Concerns were raised that the report emphasised the risks of franchising without equally considering potential rewards, and that the Council should use whichever model would deliver the best service for residents. The importance of joint-ticketing, especially to protect vulnerable users, was highlighted.

The Director of Environment and Highways acknowledged that the report’s tone and risk assessment might need revisiting to ensure balance, and that the main reason for recommending EP+ was the timing and complexity of franchising, not an inherent opposition to it.

It was clarified that the congestion charge had not been factored into the original report as it was not in place at the time, but the Council’s approach aimed to strengthen commitments from operators and improve services through EP+. The need for joint-ticketing and protecting vulnerable users was recognised, and it was stated that future models should be chosen based on their ability to deliver the best outcomes for residents.

·       Whether cross-subsidisation of bus routes was possible under current or proposed models, how the Council supported Local Transport and Connectivity Plan (LTCP) aims, and whether there was a clear strategy or mapping for bus routes, especially in rural or underserved areas.

It was explained that cross-subsidisation had historically been restricted by national regulation, but the new bus legislation might change this, though details were not fully clear. The Council’s strategy for supporting LTCP aims and developing the bus network was said to be guided by the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP), which was under review. It was acknowledged that previous subsidy cuts had significantly reduced rural services, and, whilst every community of over 500 people now had some form of bus service, the Council aimed to continue improving coverage.

The Committee AGREED to the following actions:

• Update on case studies about franchising

• The Committee agreed that it expected to scrutinise the detailed EP+ proposals if the model was approved by Cabinet.