Arriva slammed by residents for creating “black hole” with Southport bus changes.

The meeting was brokered by Labour councillors from the two wards who have held a series of talks with the company and previously described themselves as “unimpressed” by the information provided so far by Arriva, which insists that the changes must happen due to profitability issues on the routes.

Norwood Councillor Carran Waterfield chaired the meeting at Southport Town Hall and said she thought it was vital that the company heard first hand the impact it would have on some residents:

“In the short time since we’ve been made aware of this bus service review I’ve been busy trying to alert local residents and collect responses. Some people are going to be very severely affected by these changes.”

“I firmly believe that nowhere near enough has been done to include residents in a meaningful manner in this whole process and not enough account has been taken of the problems it will cause them. It is deeply flawed.”

One user of the 46a route, Beth Williams, explained that she and other passengers had mobility issues which meant they could not get to other bus route stops and warned the Arriva managers that they were leaving a “black hole” for residents around the Old Park Lane/High Park Road area with the closure plans:

“I’m pleading with you to look again at running the old 43a route around that corner as we can’t walk to the stops. You are making a black hole where we are.”

Southport’s Arriva General Manager, Gerry O’Leary, told the meeting that he didn’t want to close the route but had made the decision based on harsh realities:

“We wouldn’t be taking this service off if it was profitable, we have to face facts. This decision wasn’t taken lightly and it pains us to do it.”

Councillor Greg Myers pointed out that Mr O’ Leary had made repeated claims of unprofitability but had just as often failed to provide the figures to back this up:

“You’ve told us several times that the numbers have been falling for five years and have been asked to supply those figures. This is now the third meeting and despite promises to do so in the previous two, you have repeatedly failed to give them in full and with different reasons for it each time.”

“It may well be the case this service is unviable and the numbers haven’t been stacking up for five years as claimed but if you keep residents in the dark like this then it is too much to expect them to simply just accept with blind faith.”

The Arriva manager appeared to accept this point and again promised to provide the figures. He also initially claimed that there had been sufficient consultation but this was quickly dismissed by service users who complained that they were completely unaware of it until the Labour councillors had raised awareness of the issue.

One disabled passenger, Mairin Kelly-May, told him:

“We didn’t know about this and even when I questioned my Arriva bus driver, he knew nothing about it either. That’s just desperately short of what is needed and expected. It’s really poor.”

After hearing various complaints about the standard of the consultation, Mr O’Leary accepted that things had not gone as well as he’d supposed:

“We held a meeting in Chapel St and put signs on buses and had a lot of social media activity. We thought we’d done enough but clearly, people didn’t know about it.”

Kew Councillor Janis Blackburne also questioned the actual validity of the consultation, given the Arriva managers openly told those assembled that the only option on the table was closure of the 46a route and the change to the 44. She asked them:

“What sort of consultation is there to be had if you only have one proposal or plan? It seems to be little more than a box-ticking exercise and also one where the decision has already been quite clearly made.”

Mr O’Leary denied this was the case but also told the meeting that the route decision announcement was imminent and unlikely to have changed from the plans.

Discussions with Cumfy Bus meanwhile were already underway to see if it could help fill the holes in service provision that the changes to the 44 route would leave, said Councillor Sean Halsall, commenting:

“Cllr Blackburne and I are working hard to ensure that Kew residents at least have some other options, even if Arriva isn’t offering them at present.”

“It’s extremely disappointing that these multinational companies are so quick to make changes that affect so many peoples day to day lives. People need to be put back at the centre of public transport rather than profit.”

Norwood’s Councillor Mhairi Doyle said she was glad to hear Arriva’s Southport manager saying it had the best interests of the town at heart but the company needed to be far more transparent:

“This meeting should have happened at the start of the consultation, which should have been publicised far more effectively and the case for the changes laid clearly out at the beginning – none of that has happened and instead a fait accompli has been dressed up as a dialogue when really it’s just more of a diktat. That needs to improve as it’s not acceptable.”

“I sincerely hope lessons have been learnt by Arriva over this and we get the positive relationship that we both say we want in future because if residents continue to be treated in this fashion, I doubt there will be much faith in it left.”