Agenda item

Save the 159 Bus Service

A petition is to be presented by Mr Mullaney CC, signed by 2,388 local residents in the following terms:

“I/We the undersigned call on Conservative run Leicestershire County Council to continue to fund the 159 bus service. This service is vital for many residents across the Newbold Verdon, Barlestone, Stapleton, Market Bosworth area.”

The Chief Executive reported that the following petition had been received under Standing Order 35:

Petition: Save the 159 Bus Service

The Committee considered a briefing note by the Director of Environment and Transport in response to a petition presented by Mr. Mullaney CC, signed by 2,388 local residents. A copy of the briefing note is filed with these minutes.

The terms of the petition were:

“I/We the undersigned call on Conservative run Leicestershire County Council to continue to fund the 159 bus service. This service is vital for many residents across the Newbold Verdon, Barlestone, Stapleton, Market Bosworth area.”

Mr Mullaney provided a brief background to the petition. In presenting the petition, the following concerns were highlighted:

i.         It was the only service that connected Hinckley and Coalville, and was the only direct service to Hinckley for many villages in the Borough.

ii.         Many other services had seen reduced numbers of people using them post Covid-19.

iii.         It was hoped the 159 could be given more time to build back usage.

iv.         At a time of the cost of living crisis, the 159 bus service should be kept as an alternative to people using cars.

v.         The Demand Responsive transport did not help those who needed to use the service every day to get to work or college.

vi.         Not all areas had Demand Responsive Transport (DRT).

vii.         The service was valued, and asked whether alternative bus companies could be approached to take on the service, as even a reduced service at peak times would be welcome.

Arising from the discussion the following points were raised:

viii.         The service was subsidised by the Council at a cost of £162,792 per annum.

ix.         Options were discussed with the Operator on the future of the service, but the Operator had not been confident that the subsidy for the route could be reduced.

x.         The Passenger and Transport Policy and Strategy (PTPS) focussed the high priority journey, such as, access to food shopping and banking services at a local centre. The appendix to the report highlighted stops and points along the route and alternative methods of transport, and average boardings at those sites.

xi.         In light of the current policy the decision was made not to reinstate the subsidy to Roberts Travel. For communities left without access to commercial services, DRT had been provided by the Council.

xii.         Under legislation for public transport provision, other operators would be able to approach the Council and register the service, who would be assessed against policy.

xiii.         As recovery from the pandemic continued, there would be discussions on what transport provision needed to look like moving forward, as numbers involved in subsidies were substantial.

xiv.         Members recognised that it was an emotive issue, but the demand for public transport had been in decline since before the Covid-19 pandemic, and with the Council’s financial difficulties, the high subsidies were in place for a small amount of people using the services.

xv.         It was suggested that rather than looking at routes in isolation, a more detailed review of commercial bus services should be looked at across the board to see if they were fit for purpose.

xvi.         There had in the past been a 95% coverage policy. A new baseline was needed to reflect what had happened over the years, and in looking at the transport plan going forward, flexible options would be considered, such as, Fox Connect.

xvii.         DRT was demonstrating where demand was, and what future transport provision needed to look like.

xviii.         Members recognised that officers were proactive and worked hard to mitigate the impact of service reduction or removal.

RESOLVED:

a)    That the petition be received;

b)    That the report in response to the petition be noted.