Council Admits No Impact Assessment — But Evening Bus Services Still Cut

Following a Freedom of Information request into recent bus service changes in Thurrock, a clearer picture is now emerging — and it raises serious questions about how decisions affecting passengers have been made.

At the centre of this issue are reductions to early morning and evening services on routes 22 and 73. These are services relied upon by shift workers and those without alternative transport options. Yet despite public funding being used to support the network, those services have still been reduced.

The Council’s own response confirms several key points.

Firstly, no Equality Impact Assessment or accessibility assessment was carried out in relation to these changes.

That matters.

Public authorities are expected to consider how decisions impact different groups, particularly where changes affect access to essential services. Evening bus services are not just a convenience — they are often a lifeline for workers on non-standard hours and for communities with limited transport alternatives.

Secondly, the Council has confirmed that it holds no passenger usage data for the journeys that were reduced.

This is particularly striking given that the reductions have been justified on the basis that these were “least used” services. Without data, that claim becomes difficult to evidence. Meanwhile, real-world observations from passengers suggest that these journeys continue to carry significant numbers.

Thirdly, no value for money or performance assessment was undertaken in relation to the use of public funding.

This raises a fundamental question: how can decisions about service reductions and funding allocation be made without a clear assessment of impact or value?

The funding breakdown itself adds further weight to these concerns.

Public money has been used, in part, to increase daytime service frequency, while reductions have still taken place in early morning and evening services. In other words, funding intended to improve services appears to have supported already stronger parts of the network while socially necessary journeys have been reduced.

Internal correspondence disclosed through the FOI also indicates that there was an awareness of the social importance of these services — particularly for shift workers and those on lower incomes.

That is an important point.

Because it suggests that the impact of these changes was understood — even if it was not formally assessed.

The Council has also refused to disclose certain information relating to these decisions, citing commercial interests. That refusal is now being challenged through an internal review.

This is no longer just a local issue about one route or one timetable change.

It raises broader questions about how public funding for bus services is being used, and whether the processes in place are robust enough to ensure that decisions are evidence-based, transparent, and fair.

Public funding for buses is intended to improve services, increase accessibility, and support those who rely on public transport the most. Where funding is being provided but services are still being reduced — particularly at times when they are most needed — it is right that questions are asked.

Passengers deserve clarity.

They deserve to know how decisions are made, what evidence is used, and whether the impacts on their daily lives have been properly considered.

As this case continues, those questions remain unanswered.

But one thing is now clear — the issue is not just about bus services.

It is about accountability.