Funding to transform buses disadvantages rural communities

New analysis from Campaign for Better Transport highlights how the competitive nature of Government funding for local transport is disadvantaging rural local authorities and failing rural communities.

The transport charity found that the Government’s system of asking local transport authorities to compete against each other for funding is “consistently producing the same winners and losers”. The Government’s most recent funding, intended to transform local bus services, further compounded the problem with the “perennial losers missing out yet again”.

Silviya Barrett, from Campaign for Better Transport, said, “Our analysis has uncovered a painful truth, that the Government’s policy of asking local authorities to compete for local transport funding is producing the same winners and losers time and again. This shouldn’t be the case. All communities deserve a reliable, regular and affordable bus service. To ensure this happens, the Government must move away from this fragmented and competitive way of funding and replace it with a long-term funding settlement for all transport authorities.”

Campaign for Better Transport analysed allocations of sustainable transport funding from central government for local transport authorities over the last decade, including the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, Transforming Cities Fund, Access Fund, Active Travel Fund, Zero Emission Bus Regional Areas (ZEBRA) scheme and the recent Bus Service Improvement Plan funding (BSIPs) which was intended to transform bus services as part of the National Bus Strategy.

It found that combined mayoral authorities with large, experienced transport teams, and urban unitary or county councils that already have high levels of ambition and a history of investing in sustainable transport are receiving the bulk of Government funding. Whereas more rural unitary and county councils are repeatedly losing out, despite often needing more support to overcome greater barriers to providing a good bus network such as a more dispersed population and a lower return on investment due to lower passenger numbers than more urban areas.