Bus Service Improvement Plans (BSIPs)

[TheGrandWazoo]

Seeing as there isn't a thread for BSIPs (Bus Service Improvement Plans), I thought it would be a good idea for people to highlight what is being proposed in various counties, or indeed, anything else of interest found within their BSIPs.

For instance, one of the many nuggets from the Somerset one is that 36% of all passengers in the county are, apparently, carried on just 5 services namely Bristol to Glastonbury, Taunton to Bridgwater, Taunton to Minehead, Taunton Park and Ride, and one of the Yeovil local routes. However, there are plenty of other bits of information also contained such as some detailed stuff on potential bus priority; it's a better piece of work than I expected from Somerset!

So what's in your local BSIP?

 

[Non Multi]

Link: Buckinghamshire BSIP 2021 (PDF) published 29/10/21 - table summary of improvement measures see pages 77-81.

Ray Stenning and many others will be pleased to learn that the current Aylesbury bus station will be replaced with something else in the long term*, as part of a wider town centre regeneration scheme. The team behind the report think that app based ticketing, higher frequency** 'Superbus' corridors, bus priority measures, and more multi-mode/operator ticket areas will help revive falling bus passenger numbers in the county.

Improvements to supported 'social need' bus routes aren't covered in this plan as they require additional BSIP funding.

*So expect it to still be in use for the next 5-10 years.
**Good luck with that during a driver shortage.

 

[darloscott]

Having read through North Yorkshire’s with interest to see if there was anything relating to growing existing services (like my own, where we run one bus and it runs to an awkward 2/3 hourly frequency) and essentially it seems to be the current flagship services (like the 36) will get improvements and the answer to everything else is DRT…

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Having read through North Yorkshire’s with interest to see if there was anything relating to growing existing services (like my own, where we run one bus and it runs to an awkward 2/3 hourly frequency) and essentially it seems to be the current flagship services (like the 36) will get improvements and the answer to everything else is DRT…

Can't find it - have you got a link?

Once again, NYCC shows its lack of ambition

 

[M803UYA]

Seeing as there isn't a thread for BSIPs (Bus Service Improvement Plans), I thought it would be a good idea for people to highlight what is being proposed in various counties, or indeed, anything else of interest found within their BSIPs.

For instance, one of the many nuggets from the Somerset one is that 36% of all passengers in the county are, apparently, carried on just 5 services namely Bristol to Glastonbury, Taunton to Bridgwater, Taunton to Minehead, Taunton Park and Ride, and one of the Yeovil local routes. However, there are plenty of other bits of information also contained such as some detailed stuff on potential bus priority; it's a better piece of work than I expected from Somerset!

So what's in your local BSIP?

I honestly cannot see Somerset's BSIP actually getting it's required £163m funding. Whereas a more realistic approach, seeking £2/3m to enhance those core corridors and in provision of shoulder services (which were discarded by the current administration 10 years ago) would generate the change they seek.
Talk of electric buses is just pie in the sky. Buses are written down over a 15 year lifespan, sometimes longer. Who bears the costs of the replacement batteries halfway through the working life of the vehicles? Will those buses become diesels instead as that is cheaper? Will those buses become baked bean tins?
Talk of creating a Somerset triangle like the one in Kent ignores the thinking behind the Kent routes and the traffic generators on that service (University of Kent, the flows from Whitstable to Canterbury, Herne Bay to Canterbury, all the freedom pass journeys made by students reimbursed at the adult single fare rate because Stagecoach doesn't have child returns prior to 0930). SCC wants to create something similar using the viable Minehead-Taunton and Burnham on Sea-Taunton corridors, overlooking how marginal the Bridgwater-Minehead service actually is. Clue: It's provided free of charge by Somerset Passenger Solutions on a 2 hourly timetable weekdays as a 'community resource' as First consider it commercially unsustainable.
Somerset falls down further when they only envisage this required funding lasting 3/5 years maximum, at which time the services automatically become commercially viable. The funding to operate all this new work is required for much longer than that. Some of the 1998 Rural Bus Grant enhancements introduced still had subsidy in 2011 when Somerset decided shoulder services (evenings/Sundays) weren't necessary. Those passengers will have made alternative transport arrangements over 10 years.
Instead Somerset have managed to create 224 pages of wibble and have pinned everything on getting £163m of funding to deliver some truly pie in the sky proposals which in reality are never going to be introduced. The rejection of this 'ambitious' bid then gives the council the excuse to carry on doing little/nothing like they have since 2009.
No wonder First operates the fleet they do in the area, when faced with indifference. It is hard to realise that this same operation has invested so much in new vehicles in Cornwall, but then that investment was a mixture of commercial thinking mated up to a council which gave off encouraging signs. At the time...

 

[Flange Squeal]

Hampshire - https://documents.hants.gov.uk/transport/Hampshire-BSIP.pdf

Reduce journey times 4% by March 2025 and 9% by March 2030 on a number of specific corridors in Aldershot, Basingstoke, Winchester and on the south coast. A 10% reduction in journey times in Portsmouth and Southampton, and 4-5% across the general Androver, Blackwater Valley, Basingstoke and Winchester areas. (What's left of) their tendered network will require Euro VI vehicles in future, with all decarbonised by 2035. More and heavier traffic enforcement action to be taken at key hotspots. A consistent upper age limit for child fares to be agreed, with a new ticketing product for 16-21 year olds. Look to get duplicate service numbers in towns changed (there are two 7s in Fleet since that was split and two 1s in Winchester). Next stop audio visual on all buses by 2025. All vehicles to meet Euro VI as minimum in the Andover, Basingstoke, Blackwater Valley and Winchester areas by March 2025, and the rest of the county by March 2028. A number of infrastructure improvements identified, ranging from the layouts of bus stations to new bus priority measures and extensions of existing ones.

Surrey - https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/...78715/Surrey-Bus-Service-Improvement-Plan.pdf

Reduce journey times by 5-8% across the county. Simplify fares with more multi-operator options and tap-on-/tap-off ability. Under 25s to travel half-fare, with reduced evening fares for all. Minimum Euro VI standards for vehicles on tendered routes from now on, with zero emission vehicles required from 2030. Audio visual information and CCTV on all buses, with USB charging and Wi-Fi where practical. Bus priority measures to be introduced in the Blackwater Valley, Elmbridge, Guildford and Redhill & Reigate areas. Look at expansion of current and creation of new demand responsive operations. All services to be classified in one of three categories, with all category 1 services to run at least half-hourly and some category 2 services to receive funding for frequency enhancements.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I honestly cannot see Somerset's BSIP actually getting it's required £163m funding. Whereas a more realistic approach, seeking £2/3m to enhance those core corridors and in provision of shoulder services (which were discarded by the current administration 10 years ago) would generate the change they seek.
Talk of electric buses is just pie in the sky. Buses are written down over a 15 year lifespan, sometimes longer. Who bears the costs of the replacement batteries halfway through the working life of the vehicles? Will those buses become diesels instead as that is cheaper? Will those buses become baked bean tins?
Talk of creating a Somerset triangle like the one in Kent ignores the thinking behind the Kent routes and the traffic generators on that service (University of Kent, the flows from Whitstable to Canterbury, Herne Bay to Canterbury, all the freedom pass journeys made by students reimbursed at the adult single fare rate because Stagecoach doesn't have child returns prior to 0930). SCC wants to create something similar using the viable Minehead-Taunton and Burnham on Sea-Taunton corridors, overlooking how marginal the Bridgwater-Minehead service actually is. Clue: It's provided free of charge by Somerset Passenger Solutions on a 2 hourly timetable weekdays as a 'community resource' as First consider it commercially unsustainable.
Somerset falls down further when they only envisage this required funding lasting 3/5 years maximum, at which time the services automatically become commercially viable. The funding to operate all this new work is required for much longer than that. Some of the 1998 Rural Bus Grant enhancements introduced still had subsidy in 2011 when Somerset decided shoulder services (evenings/Sundays) weren't necessary. Those passengers will have made alternative transport arrangements over 10 years.
Instead Somerset have managed to create 224 pages of wibble and have pinned everything on getting £163m of funding to deliver some truly pie in the sky proposals which in reality are never going to be introduced. The rejection of this 'ambitious' bid then gives the council the excuse to carry on doing little/nothing like they have since 2009.
No wonder First operates the fleet they do in the area, when faced with indifference. It is hard to realise that this same operation has invested so much in new vehicles in Cornwall, but then that investment was a mixture of commercial thinking mated up to a council which gave off encouraging signs. At the time...

I agree with a lot of what you say. I was actually just surprised that they had bothered to produce 224 pages of anything! It was quite entertaining on one level and some of the stats were interesting but you are absolutely right. Somerset has long been apathetic in its approach; the contrast with neighbouring Wiltshire is pronounced. Mind you, they could be in a suicide pact with Dorset! The bus priority actually had some good ideas (were they ever to be realised) but yes, electric buses to Minehead did make me chuckle. Similarly, the mention of Yeovil and Taunton bus stations etc.

 

[Busaholic]

Talk of creating a Somerset triangle like the one in Kent ignores the thinking behind the Kent routes and the traffic generators on that service (University of Kent, the flows from Whitstable to Canterbury, Herne Bay to Canterbury, all the freedom pass journeys made by students reimbursed at the adult single fare rate because Stagecoach doesn't have child returns prior to 0930). SCC wants to create something similar using the viable Minehead-Taunton and Burnham on Sea-Taunton corridors, overlooking how marginal the Bridgwater-Minehead service actually is. Clue: It's provided free of charge by Somerset Passenger Solutions on a 2 hourly timetable weekdays as a 'community resource' as First consider it commercially unsustainable.

A comparison to the Bermuda Triangle might be more apposite! Personally, I'd love Stogumber to become the pinnacle of these operations, just so I could hear a reporter from the area on local TV pronouncing it.

 

[James101]

Is there a standardised location that local authorities have published Bus Service Improvement Plans? I ask as I can’t seem to find the actual document for Stoke-on-Trent, just the PR guff accompanying it. Even what the press release suggests is mind blowing, suggesting the authority with the 2nd highest drop-off in passenger numbers in the UK is planning on using ‘Bus Back Better’ funding to primarily build new roads to benefit motorists

• Major road building schemes to enable road space to be allocated for bus priority on main bus corridors, including Bucknall Road, Etruria Road, Waterloo Road, and Trubshaw Cross, Longport.
• The plan, includes proposals for major infrastructure improvements, such as the long-awaited completion of the city centre ring road.
• Around two-thirds of the £90 million would cover infrastructure improvements, such as the new roads – which would obviously benefit car drivers as much, if not more than bus passengers.

New £90m bus plan could mean new roads, more services and cheaper fares

Stoke-on-Trent City Council has worked with operators to draw up the bus service improvement plan, aimed at reversing years of decline in public transport use in the Potteries

www.stokesentinel.co.uk

 

[Non Multi]

Doing a search on a council's website for 'BSIP' normally leads you to it, if it's not in the buses and public transport section.

-----

Having read a few BSIPs, it's pretty clear that the big winners from Buses Back Better are the specialist consultancy firms, who will get a huge slice of the Govt funding for the various project surveys that need to be carried out everywhere.

 

[cnjb8]

Nottingham and Nottinghamshire

City council announces bus improvement bid proposals | West Bridgford Wire

Councils and bus operators in Greater Nottingham have joined forces to bid for £98m of Government funding to improve services for passengers. Featured

westbridgfordwire.com

Rather interesting as the Nottingham Linkbus and Nottsbus services are a very small shadow of their former self

• Delivering a ‘Superbus’ network of high frequency bus services throughout the day and during evenings and weekends
• Extending bus priority along key corridors
• Investing in new electric and hydrogen buses
• Improving bus stations, interchange and waiting facilities with high-spec smart and ‘green’ shelters installed in district centres
• Further roll-out of new digital displays providing real-time bus information
• Adding a youth fares discount for all 19-21 year olds
• Supporting a Jobseekers travel scheme
• Providing new contactless ticketing options to support new travel patterns and to make using the bus and fares simpler.

 

[Simon75]

Is there a standardised location that local authorities have published Bus Service Improvement Plans? I ask as I can’t seem to find the actual document for Stoke-on-Trent, just the PR guff accompanying it. Even what the press release suggests is mind blowing, suggesting the authority with the 2nd highest drop-off in passenger numbers in the UK is planning on using ‘Bus Back Better’ funding to primarily build new roads to benefit motorists

On a Facebook group someone in First, said they are looking to improve services, using 'Bus Back better ' ( Source: word of mouth)
A public transport executive (PTE) with Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle Borough and Staffordshire Moorlands, would be useful

 

[James101]

On a Facebook group someone in First, said they are looking to improve services, using 'Bus Back better ' ( Source: word of mouth)
A public transport executive (PTE) with Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle Borough and Staffordshire Moorlands, would be useful

Staffordshire’s BSIP referenced two pilot projects, one being branded as ‘Silver Service’ on a Biddulph - Hanley - Newcastle - Keele route. Not sure how they’d pair up the existing services 7A & 25 as their frequencies are 30 and 12 minutes respectively. The sceptic in me would suggest it’s an easy route offered up by First which covers both authority areas. The 25 is running with 17 year old deckers, they would naturally need ‘upgrading’ in the next year or so anyway. Agreed a transport executive would be best for the passenger, online & roadside information is pretty dire across the county, perhaps excepting Midland Classic territory.

 

[carlberry]

Is there a standardised location that local authorities have published Bus Service Improvement Plans? I ask as I can’t seem to find the actual document for Stoke-on-Trent, just the PR guff accompanying it. Even what the press release suggests is mind blowing, suggesting the authority with the 2nd highest drop-off in passenger numbers in the UK is planning on using ‘Bus Back Better’ funding to primarily build new roads to benefit motorists

This is likely to be a feature of lots of these plans. If you give priority to public transport on existing roads then the voters kick off, whereas if the priority you give is achieved by building new roads with bus lanes attached (even if no bus services use those roads) then everybody wins (except public transport users, however councilors don't have to use public transport so they don't care!).

 

[Ken H]

Having read through North Yorkshire’s with interest to see if there was anything relating to growing existing services (like my own, where we run one bus and it runs to an awkward 2/3 hourly frequency) and essentially it seems to be the current flagship services (like the 36) will get improvements and the answer to everything else is DRT…

2/3 hourly. Luxury. We have 3 a day Mon-sat.

 

[markymark2000]

What has made me laugh reading through some of the BSIPs is the specific lack of information, just throwing out loads of data and give the bare basic commitments that the govt ask for. Very little in terms of specific improvements. The Cheshire West one for example was good in some ways in my opinion as it stated which areas had been identified for improvements and what would be done in some areas to make buses better. Detail which you can hold the council to account for. Not like many of them which spout the same old rubbish that they will do generic improvements in key areas and maybe work with operators to improve frequencies.

 

[stuu]

I honestly cannot see Somerset's BSIP actually getting it's required £163m funding. Whereas a more realistic approach, seeking £2/3m to enhance those core corridors and in provision of shoulder services (which were discarded by the current administration 10 years ago) would generate the change they seek.
Talk of electric buses is just pie in the sky. Buses are written down over a 15 year lifespan, sometimes longer. Who bears the costs of the replacement batteries halfway through the working life of the vehicles? Will those buses become diesels instead as that is cheaper? Will those buses become baked bean tins?
Talk of creating a Somerset triangle like the one in Kent ignores the thinking behind the Kent routes and the traffic generators on that service (University of Kent, the flows from Whitstable to Canterbury, Herne Bay to Canterbury, all the freedom pass journeys made by students reimbursed at the adult single fare rate because Stagecoach doesn't have child returns prior to 0930). SCC wants to create something similar using the viable Minehead-Taunton and Burnham on Sea-Taunton corridors, overlooking how marginal the Bridgwater-Minehead service actually is. Clue: It's provided free of charge by Somerset Passenger Solutions on a 2 hourly timetable weekdays as a 'community resource' as First consider it commercially unsustainable.
Somerset falls down further when they only envisage this required funding lasting 3/5 years maximum, at which time the services automatically become commercially viable. The funding to operate all this new work is required for much longer than that. Some of the 1998 Rural Bus Grant enhancements introduced still had subsidy in 2011 when Somerset decided shoulder services (evenings/Sundays) weren't necessary. Those passengers will have made alternative transport arrangements over 10 years.
Instead Somerset have managed to create 224 pages of wibble and have pinned everything on getting £163m of funding to deliver some truly pie in the sky proposals which in reality are never going to be introduced. The rejection of this 'ambitious' bid then gives the council the excuse to carry on doing little/nothing like they have since 2009.
No wonder First operates the fleet they do in the area, when faced with indifference. It is hard to realise that this same operation has invested so much in new vehicles in Cornwall, but then that investment was a mixture of commercial thinking mated up to a council which gave off encouraging signs. At the time...

I agree, it's a strange document with lots of the right words and obviously the bid amount itself is substantial. But the actual outcomes don't seem to be very ambitious where people actually live. And whoever thinks it will all be commercially sustainable has clearly been at the happy pills

 

[WM Bus]

wmca-bsip-05-november-2021.pdf (tfwm.org.uk)
This is the west midlands one.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

wmca-bsip-05-november-2021.pdf (tfwm.org.uk)
This is the west midlands one.

A very interesting graph on page 22 - something I've been banging on about for ages

 

[Citistar]

Having read through North Yorkshire’s with interest to see if there was anything relating to growing existing services (like my own, where we run one bus and it runs to an awkward 2/3 hourly frequency) and essentially it seems to be the current flagship services (like the 36) will get improvements and the answer to everything else is DRT…

I think part of the problem which is becoming apparent with the whole BSIP process is that by encouraging Local Transport Authorities to aspire to hugely ambitious projects, anything which currently exists that doesn't fit the cookie cutter mould gets washed away with the latest bit of buzzword bingo. The current one appears to be "Dynamic DRT". I've always preferred static DRT myself. Minibuses go wrong much less if they're never used. But i digress, the thing about big projects is that they don't involve small bus companies, regardless of how well we understand or serve our passenger base. By removing troublesome smaller operators from the picture, larger companies become easier to regulate.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I was actually just surprised that they had bothered to produce 224 pages of anything! It was quite entertaining on one level and some of the stats were interesting but you are absolutely right. Somerset has long been apathetic in its approach; the contrast with neighbouring Wiltshire is pronounced. Mind you, they could be in a suicide pact with Dorset! The bus priority actually had some good ideas (were they ever to be realised) but yes, electric buses to Minehead did make me chuckle. Similarly, the mention of Yeovil and Taunton bus stations etc.

The only reason that Somerset's is so extensive is because they've employed consultants to write it as a greatest hits compilation of high profile schemes that have won awards over recent years. The only detail they've missed is that bus usage in Somerset is utterly appalling, much like the county council's slapdash attitude under normal circumstances. To rebuild a public transport network in the county will take decades of investment and strategic work to revise long ingrained habits. The bid couldn't even be bothered to notice several existing established corridors which could be improved before leaping off on flights of fantasy about West Somerset Triangles.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The only reason that Somerset's is so extensive is because they've employed consultants to write it as a greatest hits compilation of high profile schemes that have won awards over recent years. The only detail they've missed is that bus usage in Somerset is utterly appalling, much like the county council's slapdash attitude under normal circumstances. To rebuild a public transport network in the county will take decades of investment and strategic work to revise long ingrained habits. The bid couldn't even be bothered to notice several existing established corridors which could be improved before leaping off on flights of fantasy about West Somerset Triangles.

Again, I don't disagree. I was just surprised that they bothered to do anything more than a perfunctory job.

 

[Citistar]

Again, I don't disagree. I was just surprised that they bothered to do anything more than a perfunctory job.

They've got to fund Lee Jones' toybox somehow.

 

[jammy36]

The Devon BSIP can be found here - https://www.traveldevon.info/bus/bsip/

Interesting to compare with Somerset's proposals. Initial glance suggests that the wish list is not dissimilar to what Transport for Cornwall was meant to deliver (but hasn't yet). The bid seems weighted towards service improvement rather than capital infrastructure works and of course there's a heavy focus on linking into the east Exeter growth area. Some of the proposed new routes look to fall into the "looks good on paper" box, but there's a reason why some of these links don't exist (and some have tried and previously failed).

 

[tbtc]

the South Yorkshire one isn't great reading (https://southyorkshire-ca.gov.uk/Sh.../37770_Bus-Service-Improvement-Plan_FINAL.pdf)

It starts off with a picture of a modern bus (a Stagecoach Streetlite, 18-plate, part of the subsidised order with First for new vehicles for the Barnsley Road corridor - three years seems a long time ago now - the First services they were bought for significantly reduced, the road that the Stagecoach vehicle is pictured closed last year for "social distancing" and the council can't make their minds up whether to re-open)

Under half of passengers in Barnsley and Rotherham are fare paying adults (49% both) - this is unsurprising but paints a grim picture, showing how buses have increasingly become something for kids/ pensioners (it's 51% in Doncaster and 59% in Sheffield, which perhaps is reflected by employment statistics)

There's a nice picture of a First B7RLE on the 135, but that's a route that tells a story about how services are squeezed (the direct Sheffield - High Green service was the X64 straight up the A61, later replaced by the half hourly 77 - but over the years it's been diverted to serve Hillsborough, diverted to serve Grenoside, extended to Rotherham to replace a local service there and get drivers between the two connurbations because there's no bus depot in Rotherham any more, cut to hourly, diverted via Upperthorpe/ Lower Walkley on some streets that previous operators used to struggle to get a minibus round - so passengers now just have one bus an hour which does its best to keep away from the fast dual carriageway A61 and instead struggles with various twists and turns plus the congestion of Hillsborough Corner to replace bits of the old 17/31/42/89 and other routes

over a ten year period, First South Yorkshire made an average annual operating loss of -1.3%, while over the same period Stagecoach Yorkshire made an average annual operating profit of +2.6%

^^ not great looking figures

Some depressing stats re punctuality too - e.g. the TM Travel 6 was only on time 65% of the time (the section around Hunters Bar and Brocco Bank is a notorious problem, but operators persisted with cross-city services - this has been rectified with the replacement Powells (HCT) 6 only running west of the city and the First 9 only running east of the city - one of those examples where the number has been retained even though the route has completely changed (the 6 was once a First operated route in the 1990s from the city to Darnall, but became Fulwood - City Darnall and then Millhouses - City - Darnall and the number retained by the Millhouses - City service operated by Powells rather than the City - Darnall route which First operate that should really be the "true" 6!

But ultimately, funding is down 40% from what it was in 2010 - the PTE have no money spare (after paying for school services/ pensioners etc) - the two big operators who make up 96% of mileage were barely making any money before Covid hit - it doesn't look great. We may have some electric buses by 2040 but certainly not on all routes - I can't see us turning the corner any time soon

 

[NorthOxonian]

Oxfordshire's is at https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/resi...public-transport/bus-service-improvement-plan

There's a lot to like about it. Firstly, it seems more realistic than a lot of them. It doesn't assume passengers will return immediately (particularly in Oxford - an interesting observation they made was usage was only down 15% in Banbury but massively reduced on the Oxford Park and Ride). The overall targets also seem more modest than other BSIPs which appear to be promising the moon - everything is properly costed and seems relatively sensible.

They've also rejected demand responsive schemes in favour of more traditional "semi-flexible" routes. Obviously I'd rather they funded actual routes, but given how rural the villages concerned are, that wouldn't be viable. They also explicitly said that an app based solution would be inappropriate given the likely demographics of potential users.

There's a lot of talk about reinstating older services which failed but now have more housing and so could be viable. The three mentioned are Oxford - Northampton (via Bicester and Brackley), Oxford - Newbury (via Harwell who would contribute some of the funding), and Witney - Swindon (possibly extending back to Oxford). Their assumption is that all three could be fully commercially viable by 2030, and would receive at least some funding until then.

They want to bring in better multi operator ticketing, particularly across the county where this currently doesn't exist (though the city's SmartZone would also change - finally expanding to cover Arriva's 280 route). Though on the topic of ticketing, I did raise an eyebrow at their plan for discounted tickets for low paid NHS staff. The reasoning is fair enough - the staff can't afford to live in Oxford any more and so have to commute in, and this should be subsidised - but that's something which affects all low paid workers in the city. I realise it's probably easier to single out the NHS because it's such a huge employer and it's in the public sector, but it just doesn't seem fair.

 

[GusB]

Could I ask everyone to at least outline the key points from each plan, rather that just posting links to documents, some of which can be quite lengthy. It also means that there's a record here should any of these web pages or documents be moved or taken down completely.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

The Derbyshire County Council (DCC) BSIP is available here.

Interesting stats: DCC support 116 routes delivering 4.1m journeys a year at a cost of £4.4m, so a fraction over £1 per journey subsidy (a good bit lower than I had expected). Supported journeys look (from a graph without data labels) to have fallen by about 50% in the five years up to 2019/20 (which will have had minimal Covid distortion as lockdown only happened a few days before the end of the local authority year). But even now, subsidised journeys make up 19% of journeys in the county.

As to the plans:

Predictably, Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) is a big part of the rural future - or rather DCC will be "extending the DRT matrix across the county based on a Total Transport solution".

DRT will apparently meet the need for "More frequent and reliable services" - even though there is no explanation of how people will be able to commit to travel times many weeks ahead (eg for a hospital appointment or to book a fixed-train ticket) when DRT plans are only built days (or even minutes) ahead of travel time. They are at least planning four trials first - hopefully this time they will capture key data (like how many people are on the vehicle at any time, where they are going from and to) to allow proper analysis of whether the proposed minibuses are aggregating demand sufficiently to make them a better-value option than subsidised taxis. (My analysis of the scant data from the nearest existing of DCC's DRT experiments suggests not!). There is not a lot of explanation of the "Total Transport" bit, which is a shame - as it would be good to understand how it is going to be good economics to have school buses parked up at schools all day (with drivers returning to base on fold-up mopeds for the middle of the day?) rather than filling in with timetabled local journeys as they do now - and then shelling out on a second set of fixed costs for the DRT vehicles and drivers.

Derbyshire is planning to add another 1300 bus stop displays to show real-time running information. Given the cost of installation and maintenance/vandalism repairs, I really do wonder whether this is money well spent when smartphones are (for other reasons) becoming an increasingly essential tools for people on the move. Surely it would be better value to make sure that there is a usable mobile signal at all major locations and then concentrate on a well-designed multi-operator app to show running info.

There are great plans for Transport Hubs, which sound to be some form of Tardis-like structure that will affordably fit within the existing urban landscape, while "featuring space for local activities" (Hard luck to those community buildings who lose vital income as local activities decamp to the new space at the Hub). And they won't just be simple and effective Hubs. Oh no - they will be "vibrant community-led facilities". They will also be "a focal point for electric vehicle charging (including buses), parcel collection, shared e-Mobility and car club initiatives."

There is the promise of a unified ticketing offer with plans for capping and multi-operator ticketing at a local scale (eg Chesterfield). There is a commitment to better integration of bus times with each other, and with trains - but no clear indication of why this will be possible in future where it has so manifestly failed so far.

Finally, there is the intention to raise parking charges so that an all-day parking ticket is no less than an all-day bus ticket. Very generously, the County Council is also committing that "Boroughs and Districts which currently provide a free car parking permit for residents will offer a free bus pass as an alternative". I wonder whether Boroughs and Districts have signed up to these changes, or whether the County is expecting to force it upon them?

 

[Man of Kent]

What has made me laugh reading through some of the BSIPs is the specific lack of information, just throwing out loads of data and give the bare basic commitments that the govt ask for. Very little in terms of specific improvements. The Cheshire West one for example was good in some ways in my opinion as it stated which areas had been identified for improvements and what would be done in some areas to make buses better. Detail which you can hold the council to account for. Not like many of them which spout the same old rubbish that they will do generic improvements in key areas and maybe work with operators to improve frequencies.

BSIPs are not supposed to be documents with this level of detail, according to government guidance. This will follow in the Schemes that accompany the Enhanced Partnership.

From the official Enhanced Partnership guidance (https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/1002507/national-bus-strategy.pdf)

3.2 Once authorities and relevant bus operators have discussed and published their
BSIP, the next step is to draft the formal documentation that delivers BSIP outcomes
‘on the ground’. For an EP, this comprises:
• an EP plan - which is a high-level vision and objectives for bus services in the
local area and closely follows or replicates relevant sections of the BSIP (see
paragraphs 3.3-3.4); and
• one or more EP scheme(s) - which set out the precise detail of how the BSIP
vision and objectives will be achieved, including any commitments made by the
local authority or standards to be met by bus operators (see paragraphs 3.5-3.8)

 

[tbtc]

Looking further at the South Yorkshire document:

• 25% of journeys under 500 metres long are done by car (that feels depressingly high, but probably not surprising?)
• 
  
• Standardised bus lane times (something I'm in two minds about - it's a bit like consistence peak hours on trains - some markets warrant more than others - some roads are better off having "tidal" bus lanes, some bits of route demand bus gates that no cars ever pass through - I appreciate that this is confusing for some motorists though!)
• 
  
• Services to Hospitals "increased" in patronage, but well down in reliability (one "Student" corridor is singled out for passenger numbers significantly reducing - but the 52/120 corridor to the University of Sheffield is doing well because they serve a few hospitals, which means that demand is healthy but reliability is terrible)
• 
  
• Service changes limited to Easter and the new school year in September (makes sense to me - but may affect some cross-border services since I think West Yorkshire have/had six changes a year and Derbyshire do their own thing - nice in theory though)
• 
  
• There's a picture of an X1 branded Streetdeck on the 51 to Charnock (which is more about First's random allocation of those vehicles than a criticism of the report - I just thought it amusing that they'd select a picture of a bus branded for a different route, which illustrates how confusing some people may find things)
• 
  
• ZEBRA "funding will also support the introduction of a new electric city centre shuttle service in Sheffield" (this is something that the PTE keep promising - we had a free city centre bus in the years of Labour's largesse - Social Distancing has meant a number of central roads closed and buses diverted further away from shops - one token swanky electric service in a sea of fifteen year old vehicles?)
• 
  
• There's also a picture of a W-reg ALX400 in Barbie livery - this tickled me for some reason!

(but otherwise it's fairly thin gruel - there's significantly less money than there used to be, the PTE can't force operators to do things - there are warm words about improving bus stops and junctions and things but no firm promises because I guess they can't make firm promises - there are lots of maps with poor resolution for you try to ascertain exactly which village they are trying to highlight - they mean well and I hope they succeed but it feels a bit like shouting at the wind)

the Waverley housing development in Rotherham (a new 4,000 home community) was originally designed to include a bus interchange but this has not yet
been provided.

This is frustrating - but the houses have been built so long that it'll be hard to attract people to buses now that the residents are settled into travel patterns - which makes an interchange look worse value for money now - should really have been done a few years ago

They've also rejected demand responsive schemes in favour of more traditional "semi-flexible" routes. Obviously I'd rather they funded actual routes, but given how rural the villages concerned are, that wouldn't be viable. They also explicitly said that an app based solution would be inappropriate given the likely demographics of potential users

That sounds sensible - too often politicians are dazzled by the sexy dynamic flexible world of "demand responsive", over boring predictable regular bus services - seems a reasonable compromise

There's a lot of talk about reinstating older services which failed but now have more housing and so could be viable. The three mentioned are Oxford - Northampton (via Bicester and Brackley), Oxford - Newbury (via Harwell who would contribute some of the funding), and Witney - Swindon (possibly extending back to Oxford). Their assumption is that all three could be fully commercially viable by 2030, and would receive at least some funding until then

That's interesting - less of an issue here in South Yorkshire (where there's not the same boom in building houses, and what new accommodation gets built are either "flats near Sheffield ring road, intended for twenty somethings who want to live by the city centre" (people who don't need much public transport, since they are living there so that everything is in walking distance) or "sprawling low density estates near the M1/ M18" (which are the reason that some traditional "mining" constituencies have now gone Tory - but the housing estates are tough for buses to penetrate)

 

[domcoop7]

I wanted to include a summary of Lancashire's BSIP (here). But it's 224 pages including appendices! Even the core text is 53 pages. Written by a consulatancy (Atkins) and peppered with the usual buzz words. But having skimmed through it, other than a reference to a future "Superbus" network, and multi-operator ticketing, I'm not exactly sure what they propose to do! (Other than "make things better", and offer a "step change in public transport", etc.)

There is a Quality Partnership proposal, but I couldn't find the link for that.