Bus service cuts: 'It is clear that a quick solution is required'

BOSSES at Lothian Buses will be disappointed that the council has in effect rejected the company's plan to axe or cut back unprofitable services as it toils against a background of rising fuel prices.

But the reality is that as owner of the company the council is duty bound to take an interest not only in the economics of the situation but the social consequences before sanctioning the axing or reduction in the frequency of 16 services which serve some of the most deprived parts of the city. And before deciding whether to commit £300,000 to give them a temporary reprieve they are entitled to ask the company to go back to the drawing board and come up with an alternative plan to make economies. But it is clear a quick solution is required as the company has warned that any delay in taking decisive action will only increase its difficulties, putting even more services at risk in the near future.

The situation in which the company finds itself is unprecedented in its recent history, where as one of the most successful operators in the UK it now finds itself very much under the cosh. Up until 2008 passenger numbers have risen for ten consecutive years and last year the company posted record profits of £5.9 million. But it is suspected that without raising fares again or receiving increased subsidies on unprofitable routes a much different financial picture will be presented come December this year.

Already in trouble as early as April and facing a £4m shortfall, the company put its fares up but the combination of soaring fuel prices and an unprecedented drop of five per cent in passenger numbers – which the company blames on a reduction in service efficiency due to the tram works – is hitting it hard. It says revenues have dropped as disruption caused by roadworks is undermining passenger confidence leading to shoppers being less willing to travel on routes around Haymarket, Princes Street and St Andrew Square. It forecasts a reduction in the frequency of some services for another three years, until the trams arrive. But it is the more immediate situation that should give grounds for concern. Having ruled out a second rise in fares it must find other ways of turning its fortunes around.

And it would be no great surprise that if savings cannot be found in other areas it may be back before the council proposing further service cuts in the very near future. With no alternative solution the council will not be in a position to duck the subsidy issue for a second time.