Public Bus Funding — But Evening Services Cut: Where Is The Money Going?

At a time when Government funding is being provided to improve local bus services, serious questions are being raised about how that money is actually being used.

In Thurrock, passengers are facing reduced evening services, longer waits, and earlier last buses — despite funding being allocated through the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP). For shift workers and those reliant on public transport outside peak hours, the changes represent not an improvement, but a clear deterioration.

One passenger, writing to their MP, highlighted that the new timetable means if a bus is just missed, they now face a wait of up to 59 minutes. The same letter also points out that the last evening bus has been brought forward, further reducing accessibility for those travelling home late. These changes have been described locally as a “slightly reduced frequency”, yet the reality for users is a substantial reduction in evening provision.

This raises an important and legitimate question: how can services be reduced when public funding is being provided to improve them?

The explanation provided by the operator is that funding previously supplied by Amazon supported certain journeys and helped underpin the wider network. When that funding was withdrawn, difficult decisions had to be made. Thurrock Council reportedly provided some financial support, but not enough to maintain all services, leading to reductions in evening journeys.

However, this explanation introduces a further concern. If public funding is being used to replace withdrawn private funding, yet services are still being reduced, what improvement is actually being delivered? More importantly, is public money being used to strengthen already viable daytime services while socially necessary evening journeys are cut?

Bus Service Improvement Plan funding was introduced with clear objectives: to improve services, increase accessibility, support passengers, and grow bus use. In many areas, this funding has been used to protect evening and weekend services that are not commercially viable but are socially essential. These are often the very services relied upon by shift workers, low-income passengers, and those without access to a car.

Reducing evening frequencies while receiving improvement funding appears, at the very least, to contradict the spirit of that policy.

This is not a criticism of any single operator. Bus companies operate within the financial frameworks provided to them. The key issue here is transparency and accountability in how public funding decisions are made by the Local Transport Authority.

Passengers are entitled to understand:

• How much funding was allocated to specific routes
• Whether funding was used to enhance daytime services
• Whether evening services were assessed as socially necessary
• What passenger data informed the reductions
• Whether any equality or accessibility impact assessment was carried out

Without this information, it is difficult to understand how reducing evening services aligns with the stated objective of improving bus provision.

This situation in Thurrock also reflects a wider national issue. As new funding flows into local bus networks, there must be confidence that it is being used to enhance accessibility — not simply to rebalance networks in ways that disadvantage those who depend on buses the most.

Evening services are often the first to be reduced, yet they are among the most socially important. They support shift workers, healthcare staff, hospitality employees, and those returning from education or family commitments. When these services are cut, the impact is felt disproportionately by those with the fewest alternatives.

Public funding should be used to strengthen these lifeline services wherever possible.

This case highlights the need for greater transparency from Local Transport Authorities on how Bus Service Improvement Plan funding is allocated and what outcomes it is expected to deliver. If services are being reduced at the same time as funding is being provided, passengers deserve a clear explanation.

The question is a simple one: if public money is being invested in bus services, why are some passengers being left with fewer buses to use?

Until that question is answered transparently, concerns about how bus funding is being used will continue to grow.

Tags: Bus Service Improvement Plan, BSIP funding, Thurrock Council, Ensign Bus, Route 22 Thurrock, Route 73 Thurrock, bus service cuts, evening bus services, public transport funding, supported bus services, commercial bus services, bus network funding, local transport authority, bus policy UK, transport accountability, bus passengers, shift workers transport, bus accessibility, public subsidy buses, bus service reductions, local bus services UK, bus governance, transport transparency, RMT

About the Author

Lee Odams is a bus driver and RMT trade union representative who campaigns for transparency, accountability, and improved standards across the UK bus industry. He writes on issues including bus funding, service provision, safety, franchising, and the use of public subsidy in local transport networks. His work focuses on ensuring that public investment in buses delivers genuine improvements for passengers, protects socially necessary services, and supports a sustainable and accessible bus network.