Bus Service Improvement Plans (BSIPs)

[markymark2000]

The Transport Team will be heavily influenced by the politics of the area. The 'fantasy' ideas will come initially from the politicians, who in turn will be influenced by their more vociferious constituents. It is the way Democracy operates in this country. The Transport Team will advise the politicians on the practicalities, but at the end of the day it is the politicians (councillors usually) that will have sway. Some of the 'fantasy' ideas will come from funding from Government grants for specific closely defined purposes - should the Transport Team not apply for the grants because they think the service is unlikely to be viable when the funding finishes?

Oh, some things come from politicians but then it's up to the transport teams to give the politicians a bit of a reality check in that the money pot isn't endless and money has to be prioritised and try to work with them rather than just bow down to everything a councillor says.

There are legal limits on what can be done with s106 money, and it pretty well has to be used to service a particular development. This is money for the taking, but what should a Transport Team do if they think that this development is unlikely to sustain a viable service after the funding runs out? Refuse the contribution? Further developments may take place resulting in another tranche of money becoming available to extend the life of the original route, thereby keeping a bus service going for a further 5 years, maybe until transport policy changes and more money is allocated to bus subsidies?

I understand the limits of the S106 money but there is ways to spend it sensibly. You have to try and set up the service in such a way to make it viable. Not run the bare basic minimum knowing that it will be empty so that you don't have to fund it in a few years time. I've had experience with it in my local area where I campaigned for an S106 route to be set up to the supermarket and retail park development. It was ran in such a way that it wasn't of much use to anyone including avoiding key stops and making the bus go around the world at other times wasting money on the route. If I went in depth into the specifics, I would be way off topic but my local council has used S106 funding and ran the route in such a way so that it could be ran down so they could argue usage was too low for it to be continued. It's much harder to withdraw a route with 30,000 passengers than it is one with 10,000.

Given the number of experts slagging off local authorities on this thread I do wonder why they didn't offer their services to produce the BSIPs.

Some of us would but it would be a wasted effort. You could walk into the council tomorrow and offer to do the BSIP for free but they wouldn't let you do it because you likely wouldn't put in it what they wanted. If they pay someone, they can get it swayed how they want it, if you do it for free, it's going to be what you or the residents want, not what the council want. For example, many councils seem to avoid asking for money for real time information displays to be installed because they know once installed and that has been paid, the council then has to pay the ongoing costs which they don't want. Only one example there but councils can and do manipulate things to avoid longer term costs so that things only go on for the duration of the external funding and don't want them to become successful because it looks bad on them when they don't keep up the standards (see Flintshire for example. None of their next bus screens work anymore and haven't done for a number of years. They're there, just not on or working because it's too much effort (and maybe cost) to keep them operational).

 

[M803UYA]

My experiences, at Stagecoach South East were much simpler when it came to s106 money, The standard principle was you write us a cheque and we'll purchase the bus to service your development. This could be introduced as quickly as the registration process would allow. When the developer gave the money to Kent County Council the implementation time was increased. It was Kent's preference to have the money however, whereas the main bus operator took the view it was better sent to them and with it the services were designed around the commercial network.

The most obvious example I can think of was a development in Hawkinge for which the 73 service was extended. The developer bought the bus and the service was rerouted using that vehicle. This meant after the money had been spent, the development was now included in the commercial network and established, meaning no additional costs being wasted on the network as customers were now using the revised services.

Not all operators had such an enlightened approach towards s106 money - some consider it money to support the operation of a service in place of normal subsidy - as Citistar has chronicled on his blog.

I understand the limits of the S106 money but there is ways to spend it sensibly. You have to try and set up the service in such a way to make it viable. Not run the bare basic minimum knowing that it will be empty so that you don't have to fund it in a few years time. I've had experience with it in my local area where I campaigned for an S106 route to be set up to the supermarket and retail park development. It was ran in such a way that it wasn't of much use to anyone including avoiding key stops and making the bus go around the world at other times wasting money on the route. If I went in depth into the specifics, I would be way off topic but my local council has used S106 funding and ran the route in such a way so that it could be ran down so they could argue usage was too low for it to be continued. It's much harder to withdraw a route with 30,000 passengers than it is one with 10,000.

 

[RT4038]

Oh, some things come from politicians but then it's up to the transport teams to give the politicians a bit of a reality check in that the money pot isn't endless and money has to be prioritised and try to work with them rather than just bow down to everything a councillor says.

It is, but they may or may not listen. There comes a time when they have to do as they are bidden.

I understand the limits of the S106 money but there is ways to spend it sensibly. You have to try and set up the service in such a way to make it viable. Not run the bare basic minimum knowing that it will be empty so that you don't have to fund it in a few years time. I've had experience with it in my local area where I campaigned for an S106 route to be set up to the supermarket and retail park development. It was ran in such a way that it wasn't of much use to anyone including avoiding key stops and making the bus go around the world at other times wasting money on the route. If I went in depth into the specifics, I would be way off topic but my local council has used S106 funding and ran the route in such a way so that it could be ran down so they could argue usage was too low for it to be continued. It's much harder to withdraw a route with 30,000 passengers than it is one with 10,000.

Yes, it has to be spent sensibly But your idea of sensibly may not coincide with theirs, or with other people. The way things appear on the outside does not necessarily show the constraints that are being worked under.

Some of us would but it would be a wasted effort. You could walk into the council tomorrow and offer to do the BSIP for free but they wouldn't let you do it because you likely wouldn't put in it what they wanted. If they pay someone, they can get it swayed how they want it, if you do it for free, it's going to be what you or the residents want, not what the council want. For example, many councils seem to avoid asking for money for real time information displays to be installed because they know once installed and that has been paid, the council then has to pay the ongoing costs which they don't want. Only one example there but councils can and do manipulate things to avoid longer term costs so that things only go on for the duration of the external funding and don't want them to become successful because it looks bad on them when they don't keep up the standards (see Flintshire for example. None of their next bus screens work anymore and haven't done for a number of years. They're there, just not on or working because it's too much effort (and maybe cost) to keep them operational).

If the Local Authority Transport Team doesn't have the budget for ongoing maintenance of real time information displays, what do you expect them to do? I doubt it is anything to do with 'don't want them to become successful because it looks bad on them'. There are huge problems with timetable data and/or bus location information in many areas, aside from financial constraints making maintenance (both hard and software) of such systems problemmatic.

 

[M803UYA]

If the Local Authority Transport Team doesn't have the budget for ongoing maintenance of real time information displays, what do you expect them to do? I doubt it is anything to do with 'don't want them to become successful because it looks bad on them'. There are huge problems with timetable data and/or bus location information in many areas, aside from financial constraints making maintenance (both hard and software) of such systems problemmatic.

The odd thing about the bus industry is it's expectation (or acceptance) of advertising and promotion being done by others. If I went to my local supermarket to do my shopping, I wouldn't expect the council to tell me the times the shop was open, or to provide details about pricing. I'm not told that items have increased in price for instance. Such things would be the preserve of the supermarket themselves informing their customers.

Where I reside, in North Yorkshire we have a bus stop in my village that is managed by Travel South Yorkshire as this is the origin of the service.
It could easily fall to West Yorkshire Metro, as we border that area.

Telepathy is required to know when the bus operates, as the operator has a completely unusable website and doesn't seem to want people to use their services. I guess it's easier to withdraw a service people don't use when you make no effort to find customers...

 

[Flange Squeal]

This blog post looks at the Suffolk BSIP in great detail and is an interesting read: http://busandtrain.blogspot.com/2021/11/bus-back-better-in-suffolk.html

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is, but they may or may not listen. There comes a time when they have to do as they are bidden.


Yes, it has to be spent sensibly But your idea of sensibly may not coincide with theirs, or with other people. The way things appear on the outside does not necessarily show the constraints that are being worked under.


If the Local Authority Transport Team doesn't have the budget for ongoing maintenance of real time information displays, what do you expect them to do? I doubt it is anything to do with 'don't want them to become successful because it looks bad on them'. There are huge problems with timetable data and/or bus location information in many areas, aside from financial constraints making maintenance (both hard and software) of such systems problemmatic.

This is sadly the Top Gear world of "how hard can it be". However, if people haven't dealt with the world of public sector, then it really is difficult to understand how it works. These BSIPs have to be written in a particular way and the language etc reflects what is required.

You have to "play the game" and the rules aren't readily apparent to the general public.

Of the ones I've seen thus far, the glossy and slightly bonkers ones seem to be from those authorities with historically the most tepid approach and little interest in buses (and so have had to subcontract the work out) whilst the slightly more earnest and rudimentary ones come from the better LAs.

 

[820KDV]

As someone who was involved in writing a Bus Service Improvement Plan it has been very interesting following the comments here. I work for a unitary authority which was formerly a large shire county. We don't have a dominant operator although we do have subsidiaries of three of the main groups operating in our area. We also have a large family run bus company who, in mileage terms, is our second biggest operator.

We did employ a consultant to assist us with the production of our bus service improvement plan. There is no way that we had the resource internally to complete such a document. Whilst the BSIP itself runs to nearly 50 pages there is also 140+ pages of statistics and data behind the actual plan which we have made available to the DfT but which we haven't published as we are not required to do so and such a large document, we are advised, would cause problems for our website.

Our consultants did considerable work on obtaining data from various sources which are beyond the knowledge of staff in the Passenger Transport Unit as cuts over the past 10 years have left us heavily biased towards day-to-day operations, with the former policy and strategy team gone. However, all of the content about our current bus services and our plans and asks for funding were written by PTU staff whilst still doing all of their day jobs.

As part of the process, we wrote to all our councillors, and our town and parish councils, all of whom were invited to suggest how the bus services in their area could be improved. Some of these choose to ask the public in their area to contribute their ideas, others replied based on what people email them about and inevitably some didn’t engage. These responses have been very useful is setting a direction for our BSIP and has provided lots of specific projects which we will consider when we get to the Enhanced Partnership Scheme stage.

We also conducted a public survey using an online platform where we tried to capture as much data as possible from non-bus users, including business owners. If we are to grow bus use in our area, we have to understand all the barriers which prevent people in the bus. Obviously, there will always be some people who wouldn't be seen dead on a bus, but there are many more who would make use of the bus if it better met their needs. As with the councillor and local council work, we got some very useful pointers from this public survey, including making contact with a number of employers and opening dialogue with the Department for Work and Pensions.

Internally we have also been having weekly meetings with various Heads of Service. These have included people from Highways Operations (who are responsible for the current road network) Highway Planning (who design new road schemes), Spatial Planning (who set the policy and design standards for housing developments etc), Business & Regeneration and Active Travel. For some the BSIP offers an opportunity to expand and enhance existing work, but for others considering the bus as part of their work was something very new, but which all are very keen to embrace.

There has been some criticism here of the ambition and “bonkers” nature of BSIPs. Please remember however, throughout the process the DfT kept emphasising that our plans should be ambitious. They tell us successes in the coming couple of years which they can trumpet will put them in a very strong position with the Treasury when it comes to further funding. Of course, that doesn’t mean that “bonkers” is good, but might explain how some of these got into various BSIPs.

We, perhaps, have been very fortunate that our cabinet member and the leader of our council are supportive off the concept of improving buses. However, they and we as officers, see this document as something which we can use to encourage politicians at various levels to take the bus seriously. We know that the DfT doesn't have a bottomless pit of money and for some of these schemes we may be looking for contributions from our town councils, indeed the DfT has told us that if schemes are partially funded by others that proves they are really important, and in turn they are more likely to contribute too. Glossy may not sway the DfT, but it can be useful elsewhere.

We have also, of course, engaged with our bus operators and they have been very keen to see an ambitious BSIP. Indeed, when they saw one of the earlier drafts, their main comment was that it was not ambitious enough. Remember, in the case of the big groups, documents such as the BSIP help them at national level obtain spending for their subsidiary. Likewise our TOCs, albeit one (fortunately the one with the majority of stations) is much more engaged than the other have been part of the process.

There has been comment here about the style of various publications. The council’s in house graphic design team produced our document and as such it follows the council’s design criteria. We knew that there needed some illustrations, and many possible photographs were provided to the designer, but they had complete freedom in how many and how they were used. Apart us from asking to swap two photos between pages so that they better match the neighbouring text the appearance of the BSIP is entirely down to the designer.

I hope that you will understand that I don't wish to identify which council I work for, and indeed that isn't relevant to the more general comments above. So far no one has analysed our BSIP however the council has been named a couple of times in this thread; I thank you for the complimentary remarks made. I am sure that there are things we could do better in our support and delivery of local bus services, and we know that a little more time and resource could have resulted in a BSIP but that is not where we are.

As a closing note I have spent just over half of my career in the Passenger Transport Unit of the council and the other half with a major bus operator at one of the large groups, so I have seen both sides of the coin. I look forward to peoples further comments on bus service improvement plans as it is both interesting and informative, as I hope this has been.

 

[NJX]

Seems like a great piece of reading material but unfortunately I can only find articles relating to Herts BSIP and not the actual report itself

 

[markymark2000]

My experiences, at Stagecoach South East were much simpler when it came to s106 money, The standard principle was you write us a cheque and we'll purchase the bus to service your development. This could be introduced as quickly as the registration process would allow. When the developer gave the money to Kent County Council the implementation time was increased. It was Kent's preference to have the money however, whereas the main bus operator took the view it was better sent to them and with it the services were designed around the commercial network.

The most obvious example I can think of was a development in Hawkinge for which the 73 service was extended. The developer bought the bus and the service was rerouted using that vehicle. This meant after the money had been spent, the development was now included in the commercial network and established, meaning no additional costs being wasted on the network as customers were now using the revised services.

Not all operators had such an enlightened approach towards s106 money - some consider it money to support the operation of a service in place of normal subsidy - as Citistar has chronicled on his blog.

This a very good insight and one for which I am extremely grateful.

I think the example is a great one of buses need to be worked into the existing bus network as then the route is more useful (rather than 1 bus from home to town, it may be interurban or provide better link), operators are much more willing to put time and effort into something that they think will last longer rather than a 2 year operation and then it's all gone. Why try to build up a bus knowing that in 2 years time, it will be gone and it will look bad on them because all route cancellations are big bad, money grabbing, private bus operators. I can really see why bus operators would prefer the money to put into diversion or something to the normal service.
I can fully see your counter argument that it should never be used to support the overall operation, it should only cover the additional costs.

Yes, it has to be spent sensibly But your idea of sensibly may not coincide with theirs, or with other people. The way things appear on the outside does not necessarily show the constraints that are being worked under.

Is it sensible to waste 2 buses on a dedicated Sunday which provides a better Sunday service than weekday service or would it be better to use the same 2 buses, for the exact same operating hours, to provide a service along the core route and put a bus into areas which actually use it, not struggling to sustain an hourly weekday service (half hourly Sunday).
On another route, does it make sense to miss out 2 of the busiest stops in the area which serve a good few hundred people in favour of serving 3 dead stops which no one uses.
Another route, does it make sense to to put layover of 5 minutes into the middle of a circular rather than at the 'end' where most people board/alight?

It's not to do with constraints, it's planks trying to run a bus network and not having a clue what they are doing and at times intentionally trying to run down routes to save funding them in the future.

If the Local Authority Transport Team doesn't have the budget for ongoing maintenance of real time information displays, what do you expect them to do? I doubt it is anything to do with 'don't want them to become successful because it looks bad on them'. There are huge problems with timetable data and/or bus location information in many areas, aside from financial constraints making maintenance (both hard and software) of such systems problemmatic.

The issues are now I think less common with bus open data taking much information from the ticket machines and now a lot more people spot any mistakes. Not having the budget I get but then sort the budget on fantasy fresh air routes and suddenly you get 100,000 per year back in the budget. In some instances the budgets aren't there but then there is also no fight to get more budget. When you are quiet, you become forgotten.

The odd thing about the bus industry is it's expectation (or acceptance) of advertising and promotion being done by others. If I went to my local supermarket to do my shopping, I wouldn't expect the council to tell me the times the shop was open, or to provide details about pricing. I'm not told that items have increased in price for instance. Such things would be the preserve of the supermarket themselves informing their customers.

This seems to vary by area. Areas such as Hampshire have given operators the responsibility for bus stop flags and information where they are the sole operator. The same pros and cons remain though as some bus stops get abandoned and don't get updated. In other areas though it leads to vastly better information including fare information.
Other areas, councils prefer to run the infrastructure so that there is a bit of consistency. I'd be interested to know if any operators have tried to do their own flags and been turned down?

Whoever does the flags and timetables should take the job seriously. Both operators and councils should be working together the improve the situation. In areas of multiple operators, you do need the council to perhaps standardise things else you'd end up with situations like Harlow Bus Station where each operator puts their own information up and anyone who could use more than one bus has to go to 300 posters to work out the next bus and any relevant details.

Telepathy is required to know when the bus operates, as the operator has a completely unusable website and doesn't seem to want people to use their services. I guess it's easier to withdraw a service people don't use when you make no effort to find customers...

This is too true and is shown all across the industry every day. A number of independents don't seem to have the expertise to do marketing and stuff but then they also don't try to make things work. Then again, like most independent companies around the UK (not just buses but including retailers), they rely on the old passing trade and word of mouth, not actual marketing then when things go wrong, it's someone elses fault like costs being too high, not their fault for not getting in paying customers/passengers. Unfortunately it's just the mentality of independent companies.

As someone who was involved in writing a Bus Service Improvement Plan it has been very interesting following the comments here. I work for a unitary authority which was formerly a large shire county. We don't have a dominant operator although we do have subsidiaries of three of the main groups operating in our area. We also have a large family run bus company who, in mileage terms, is our second biggest operator.

We did employ a consultant to assist us with the production of our bus service improvement plan. There is no way that we had the resource internally to complete such a document. Whilst the BSIP itself runs to nearly 50 pages there is also 140+ pages of statistics and data behind the actual plan which we have made available to the DfT but which we haven't published as we are not required to do so and such a large document, we are advised, would cause problems for our website.

Our consultants did considerable work on obtaining data from various sources which are beyond the knowledge of staff in the Passenger Transport Unit as cuts over the past 10 years have left us heavily biased towards day-to-day operations, with the former policy and strategy team gone. However, all of the content about our current bus services and our plans and asks for funding were written by PTU staff whilst still doing all of their day jobs.

As part of the process, we wrote to all our councillors, and our town and parish councils, all of whom were invited to suggest how did the bus services in their area could be improved. Some of these choose to ask the public in their area to contribute their ideas, others replied based on what people email them about and inevitably some didn’t engage. These responses have been very useful is setting a direction for our BSIP and has provided lots of specific projects which we will consider when we get to the Enhanced Partnership Scheme stage.

We also conducted a public survey using an online platform where we tried to capture as much data as possible from non-bus users, including business owners. If we are to grow bus use in our area, we have to understand all the barriers which prevent people in the bus. Obviously, there will always be some people who wouldn't be seen dead on a bus, but there are many more who would make use of the bus if it better met their needs. As with the councillor and local council work, we got some very useful pointers from this public survey, including making contact with a number of employers and opening dialogue with the Department for Work and Pensions.

Internally we have also been having weekly meetings with various Heads of Service. These have included people from Highways Operations (who are responsible for the current road network) Highway Planning (who design new road schemes), Spatial Planning (who set the policy and design standards for housing developments etc), Business & Regeneration and Active Travel. For some the BSIP offers an opportunity to expand and enhance existing work, but for others considering the bus as part of their work was something very new, but which all are very keen to embrace.

There has been some criticism here of the ambition and “bonkers” nature of BSIPs. Please remember however, throughout the process the DfT kept emphasising that our plans should be ambitious. They tell us successes in the coming couple of years which they can trumpet will put them in a very strong position with the Treasury when it comes to further funding. Of course, that doesn’t mean that “bonkers” is good, but might explain how some of these got into various BSIPs.

We, perhaps, have been very fortunate that our cabinet member and the leader of our council are supportive off the concept of improving buses. However, they and we as officers, see this document as something which we can use to encourage politicians at various levels to take the bus seriously. We know without the DfT doesn't have a bottomless pit of money and for some of these schemes we may be looking for contributions from our town councils, indeed the DfT has told us that if schemes are partially funded by others that proves they are really important, and in turn they are more likely to contribute too. Glossy may not sway the DfT, but it can be useful elsewhere.

We have also, of course, engaged with our bus operators and they have been very keen to see an ambitious BSIP. Indeed, when they saw one of the earlier drafts, their main comment was that it was not ambitious enough. Remember, in the case of the big groups, documents such as the BSIP help them at national level obtain spending for their subsidiary. Likewise our TOCs, albeit one (fortunately the one with the majority of stations) is much more engaged than the other have been part of the process.

There has been comment here about the style of various publications. The council’s in house graphic design team produced our document and as such it follows the council’s design criteria. We knew that there needed some illustrations, and many possible photographs were provided to the designer, but they had complete freedom in how many and how they were used. Apart us from asking to swap two photos between pages so that they better match the neighbouring text the appearance of the BSIP is entirely down to the designer.

I hope that you will understand that I don't wish to identify which council I work for, and indeed that isn't relevant to the more general comments above. So far no one has analysed our BSIP however the council has been named a couple of times in this thread; I thank you for the complimentary remarks made. I am sure that there are things we could do better in our support and delivery of local bus services, and we know that a little more time and resource could have resulted in a BSIP but that is not where we are.

As a closing note I have spent just over half of my career in the Passenger Transport Unit of the council and the other half with a major bus operator at one of the large groups, so I have seen both sides of the coin. I look forward to peoples further comments on bus service improvement plans as it is both interesting and informative, as I hope this has been.

It's very good to see the process explained. I am specifically interested in the 'ambitiousness' of some of the BSIPs. If operators are saying not ambitious enough, are they giving specifics on what could be done and are the council and consultants acting on those specifics? I know that I think that CWACCs could be 'more ambitious' with infrastructure improvements to help buses such as advance stop lines for buses (or whatever the technical term is) and introducing better priority in areas where buses are often affects (though interestingly, most delays are as a result of council works. Just this week it took a bus an hour to do a journey which should take just under 10 minutes because of the council roadworks). Also kicking the can down the road for things which can be done instantly because they are just pure lazy and can't be bothered with the effort, I think they are hoping that if they put 3 year deadlines on things, people will forget it happened.

 

[Robertj21a]

As someone who was involved in writing a Bus Service Improvement Plan it has been very interesting following the comments here. I work for a unitary authority which was formerly a large shire county. We don't have a dominant operator although we do have subsidiaries of three of the main groups operating in our area. We also have a large family run bus company who, in mileage terms, is our second biggest operator.

We did employ a consultant to assist us with the production of our bus service improvement plan. There is no way that we had the resource internally to complete such a document. Whilst the BSIP itself runs to nearly 50 pages there is also 140+ pages of statistics and data behind the actual plan which we have made available to the DfT but which we haven't published as we are not required to do so and such a large document, we are advised, would cause problems for our website.

Our consultants did considerable work on obtaining data from various sources which are beyond the knowledge of staff in the Passenger Transport Unit as cuts over the past 10 years have left us heavily biased towards day-to-day operations, with the former policy and strategy team gone. However, all of the content about our current bus services and our plans and asks for funding were written by PTU staff whilst still doing all of their day jobs.

As part of the process, we wrote to all our councillors, and our town and parish councils, all of whom were invited to suggest how did the bus services in their area could be improved. Some of these choose to ask the public in their area to contribute their ideas, others replied based on what people email them about and inevitably some didn’t engage. These responses have been very useful is setting a direction for our BSIP and has provided lots of specific projects which we will consider when we get to the Enhanced Partnership Scheme stage.

We also conducted a public survey using an online platform where we tried to capture as much data as possible from non-bus users, including business owners. If we are to grow bus use in our area, we have to understand all the barriers which prevent people in the bus. Obviously, there will always be some people who wouldn't be seen dead on a bus, but there are many more who would make use of the bus if it better met their needs. As with the councillor and local council work, we got some very useful pointers from this public survey, including making contact with a number of employers and opening dialogue with the Department for Work and Pensions.

Internally we have also been having weekly meetings with various Heads of Service. These have included people from Highways Operations (who are responsible for the current road network) Highway Planning (who design new road schemes), Spatial Planning (who set the policy and design standards for housing developments etc), Business & Regeneration and Active Travel. For some the BSIP offers an opportunity to expand and enhance existing work, but for others considering the bus as part of their work was something very new, but which all are very keen to embrace.

There has been some criticism here of the ambition and “bonkers” nature of BSIPs. Please remember however, throughout the process the DfT kept emphasising that our plans should be ambitious. They tell us successes in the coming couple of years which they can trumpet will put them in a very strong position with the Treasury when it comes to further funding. Of course, that doesn’t mean that “bonkers” is good, but might explain how some of these got into various BSIPs.

We, perhaps, have been very fortunate that our cabinet member and the leader of our council are supportive off the concept of improving buses. However, they and we as officers, see this document as something which we can use to encourage politicians at various levels to take the bus seriously. We know without the DfT doesn't have a bottomless pit of money and for some of these schemes we may be looking for contributions from our town councils, indeed the DfT has told us that if schemes are partially funded by others that proves they are really important, and in turn they are more likely to contribute too. Glossy may not sway the DfT, but it can be useful elsewhere.

We have also, of course, engaged with our bus operators and they have been very keen to see an ambitious BSIP. Indeed, when they saw one of the earlier drafts, their main comment was that it was not ambitious enough. Remember, in the case of the big groups, documents such as the BSIP help them at national level obtain spending for their subsidiary. Likewise our TOCs, albeit one (fortunately the one with the majority of stations) is much more engaged than the other have been part of the process.

There has been comment here about the style of various publications. The council’s in house graphic design team produced our document and as such it follows the council’s design criteria. We knew that there needed some illustrations, and many possible photographs were provided to the designer, but they had complete freedom in how many and how they were used. Apart us from asking to swap two photos between pages so that they better match the neighbouring text the appearance of the BSIP is entirely down to the designer.

I hope that you will understand that I don't wish to identify which council I work for, and indeed that isn't relevant to the more general comments above. So far no one has analysed our BSIP however the council has been named a couple of times in this thread; I thank you for the complimentary remarks made. I am sure that there are things we could do better in our support and delivery of local bus services, and we know that a little more time and resource could have resulted in a BSIP but that is not where we are.

As a closing note I have spent just over half of my career in the Passenger Transport Unit of the council and the other half with a major bus operator at one of the large groups, so I have seen both sides of the coin. I look forward to peoples further comments on bus service improvement plans as it is both interesting and informative, as I hope this has been.

Thank you. That's been very informative and helpful, I hope you achieve a lot of what you'd like, in exchange for the effort you've put in.

 

[RT4038]

The odd thing about the bus industry is it's expectation (or acceptance) of advertising and promotion being done by others. If I went to my local supermarket to do my shopping, I wouldn't expect the council to tell me the times the shop was open, or to provide details about pricing. I'm not told that items have increased in price for instance. Such things would be the preserve of the supermarket themselves informing their customers.

Where I reside, in North Yorkshire we have a bus stop in my village that is managed by Travel South Yorkshire as this is the origin of the service.
It could easily fall to West Yorkshire Metro, as we border that area.

Telepathy is required to know when the bus operates, as the operator has a completely unusable website and doesn't seem to want people to use their services. I guess it's easier to withdraw a service people don't use when you make no effort to find customers...

Couldn't agree with you more. The public engagement exercise carried out in my local county placed information provision (or more precisely the lack of it) as an important priority, and the BSIP contains a funding ask for this.

Quite why bus companies believe that online journey planners are the answer to all their information problems, when they know full well that a proportion of the customer base do not interact with such things very well, if at all? Particularly the elderly. They are already howling about concessionary fare passengers not recovering as quickly as ordinary fare payers. The answer is in their own hands - give these people the security and confidence to use the service by producing timetable information that they can access.

This a very good insight and one for which I am extremely grateful.

I think the example is a great one of buses need to be worked into the existing bus network as then the route is more useful (rather than 1 bus from home to town, it may be interurban or provide better link), operators are much more willing to put time and effort into something that they think will last longer rather than a 2 year operation and then it's all gone. Why try to build up a bus knowing that in 2 years time, it will be gone and it will look bad on them because all route cancellations are big bad, money grabbing, private bus operators. I can really see why bus operators would prefer the money to put into diversion or something to the normal service.
I can fully see your counter argument that it should never be used to support the overall operation, it should only cover the additional costs.

But some bus companies, quite rightly, do not want to divert their existing services via new developments, because of the inconvenience to existing passengers who have to endure increased journey times and may be lost as a result. This then results in a separate service having to be provided, not competing with that operators route, which may result in a more circuitous [aka 'fantasy'] routeing that is not sustainable in the longer term.

Is it sensible to waste 2 buses on a dedicated Sunday which provides a better Sunday service than weekday service or would it be better to use the same 2 buses, for the exact same operating hours, to provide a service along the core route and put a bus into areas which actually use it, not struggling to sustain an hourly weekday service (half hourly Sunday).
On another route, does it make sense to miss out 2 of the busiest stops in the area which serve a good few hundred people in favour of serving 3 dead stops which no one uses.
Another route, does it make sense to to put layover of 5 minutes into the middle of a circular rather than at the 'end' where most people board/alight?

It's not to do with constraints, it's planks trying to run a bus network and not having a clue what they are doing and at times intentionally trying to run down routes to save funding them in the future.

I can't comment on your examples, because I do not know where they are. However, I expect there are some reasons for doing as has been done.

The issues are now I think less common with bus open data taking much information from the ticket machines and now a lot more people spot any mistakes. Not having the budget I get but then sort the budget on fantasy fresh air routes and suddenly you get 100,000 per year back in the budget. In some instances the budgets aren't there but then there is also no fight to get more budget. When you are quiet, you become forgotten.

The money for the fantasy fresh air routes is probably ring fenced particularly for the provision of that particular bus route, and cannot be simply transferred for use in improving information. I suspect that there is a constant battle in many Authorities to avoid budgets being further and further reduced - it is naive to think that simply 'fighting' will get extra money allocated.

It's very good to see the process explained. I am specifically interested in the 'ambitiousness' of some of the BSIPs. If operators are saying not ambitious enough, are they giving specifics on what could be done and are the council and consultants acting on those specifics? I know that I think that CWACCs could be 'more ambitious' with infrastructure improvements to help buses such as advance stop lines for buses (or whatever the technical term is) and introducing better priority in areas where buses are often affects (though interestingly, most delays are as a result of council works. Just this week it took a bus an hour to do a journey which should take just under 10 minutes because of the council roadworks). Also kicking the can down the road for things which can be done instantly because they are just pure lazy and can't be bothered with the effort, I think they are hoping that if they put 3 year deadlines on things, people will forget it happened.

The bus operators, and to an extent Central Government, are particularly wishing to see Local Authorities being ambitious about increased bus priority. This is, of course, a very thorny local political issue, which local politicians do not really want to grasp as they feel that this is not a vote winner amongst their constituents. I could be very cynical and accuse bus operators of wishing such ambition knowing that the LA is probably not going to be able to fulfill their side of the plan, so this will be used as an excuse for operators not to fulfill theirs either. Likewise Central Government don't want to be blamed for 'private car bashing', so are trying to put the impetus and blame on local politicians. (no bus priority = no BSIP money). Politics and all that....

 

[M803UYA]

Couldn't agree with you more. The public engagement exercise carried out in my local county placed information provision (or more precisely the lack of it) as an important priority, and the BSIP contains a funding ask for this.

Quite why bus companies believe that online journey planners are the answer to all their information problems, when they know full well that a proportion of the customer base do not interact with such things very well, if at all? Particularly the elderly. They are already howling about concessionary fare passengers not recovering as quickly as ordinary fare payers. The answer is in their own hands - give these people the security and confidence to use the service by producing timetable information that they can access.

My bugbear, with my local bus service stems from the indifference of the big5 PLC operator of it. They're very into the bare minimum - think route branding is the be all and end all of a service, rather than focusing on the basic things like having buses of the same type, in the same identity. Often we get 'premium' branded vehicles operating the service, which could and should be operated into Leeds as per their branding for the busiest services. My local bus isn't branded, but can be one of 5 different liveries.
They're not interested in providing deregulated bus services, but are interested in tendered contracts and the framework of London service contracts where they need to turn up at given times. Anything else besides that is of no interest to them - they don't like competition either.
We do have a few smaller operators providing local services where I live, and they understand how to present a vehicle, more or less follow a timetable, find someone to drive it, and if needs be, avoid any lost mileage by simply getting in and driving it themselves.
Whereas the big operator simply pulls the journey as there is no one to drive the service and leaves the poor driver of the next journey to deal with the cheesed off customers.
It is difficult to see how a BSIP will improve my service from the low point it is at presently. I guess having a timetable up in the bus stop could be a good starting point. I only know when it runs thanks to Travel South Yorkshire's logically laid out timetable. The operator themselves has a useless website where you cannot look up the timetable for the service, and you get to look through a list of national routes run by every operating company to find the needle in the haystack.

 

[RT4038]

My bugbear, with my local bus service stems from the indifference of the big5 PLC operator of it. They're very into the bare minimum - think route branding is the be all and end all of a service, rather than focusing on the basic things like having buses of the same type, in the same identity. Often we get 'premium' branded vehicles operating the service, which could and should be operated into Leeds as per their branding for the busiest services. My local bus isn't branded, but can be one of 5 different liveries.
They're not interested in providing deregulated bus services, but are interested in tendered contracts and the framework of London service contracts where they need to turn up at given times. Anything else besides that is of no interest to them - they don't like competition either.
We do have a few smaller operators providing local services where I live, and they understand how to present a vehicle, more or less follow a timetable, find someone to drive it, and if needs be, avoid any lost mileage by simply getting in and driving it themselves.
Whereas the big operator simply pulls the journey as there is no one to drive the service and leaves the poor driver of the next journey to deal with the cheesed off customers.
It is difficult to see how a BSIP will improve my service from the low point it is at presently. I guess having a timetable up in the bus stop could be a good starting point. I only know when it runs thanks to Travel South Yorkshire's logically laid out timetable. The operator themselves has a useless website where you cannot look up the timetable for the service, and you get to look through a list of national routes run by every operating company to find the needle in the haystack.

I understand and share your frustrations, even if we differ on some of the details.

However, it has to be understood why these things are, and how they have got into this situation. The big5 PLCs are exhausted. They are risk averse because that is the way of PLCs that are quoted on the Stock Exchange and whose value is at the whim of City analysts. I know one of them is not quoted, but this is owned by a foreign State organisation which is in financial difficulties and would like to sell. The big5 feel totally battered by various Government and other actions over the last 10 or so years - inter alia Concessionary fare re-imbursement levels, threat of franchising of the most profitable areas threatening their businesses, compulsory re-training, safety regulation, Covid and now staff shortages. They have cut costs to the barest minimum and in the process lost much of their expertise and capacity to do all but the most basic of tasks. Some of this may well be considered self inflicted, but it is not difficult to see how these decisions got made. The bus industry is not the most 'sexy with a bright future' industry; it is difficult to find and attract the right calibre people with an interest and feel for the product - most high fliers would see travelling by bus as a failure of life and seem to have little or no understanding of the thought processes involved by both providers and users. Of course there are some outliers - but they don't have the capacity to take on the entire industry and the social/political framework that it operates in and not end 'ground down'.

There is simply not enough trade now to be engaging in 'deregulation'. Of course every company likes an effective monopoly - they certainly don't want small operators creaming off sections of their best routes. They will respond aggressively, if it is worth it. With Covid there certainly has been a step change in the big5 starting to look at moving revenue risk from them to whoever else will take it - Local Authorities, Central Government, private company contracts. Why wouldn't they in the circumstances - if you were answerable for a company's financial position in such an uncertain world, I suspect you would too. They have effectively lost their expertise and ability to operate commercially on anything apart from the broadest sense, which is not easily going to come back. The Enhanced Partnership agreements are a sort of way towards Local Authorities taking control of bus routes (by finances) without unduly threatening the existence of the incumbent operators - I think we will have to be a little patient in seeing how this pans out. However, LA financing is also precarious and unlikely to change much, so don't hold your breath on seismic changes, unless they get BSIP money. [Whether they are all in a position to take advantage is another matter].

Small operators providing local services is a bit of a double edged sword - for all that do it well there are plenty who don't. Their routes usually are not effectively part of the wider network under the current dispensation, which is why big5 operators tend to get favoured. Small operators may run a few buses quite well, but once their portfolio increases often find the sheer weight of day to day provision overwhelming. Not an easy task at all, as they find out.

It is difficult to see how the BSIP will improve things in some areas - in the town that I live (pop 75k) the bus service is pretty much an irrelevance to most people - no-one knows where they go or at what times - they run nearly empty. Most people have cars - many households 2 and more. I have seen this elsewhere in my career and it is not good.

 

[Robertj21a]

I understand and share your frustrations, even if we differ on some of the details.

However, it has to be understood why these things are, and how they have got into this situation. The big5 PLCs are exhausted. They are risk averse because that is the way of PLCs that are quoted on the Stock Exchange and whose value is at the whim of City analysts. I know one of them is not quoted, but this is owned by a foreign State organisation which is in financial difficulties and would like to sell. The big5 feel totally battered by various Government and other actions over the last 10 or so years - inter alia Concessionary fare re-imbursement levels, threat of franchising of the most profitable areas threatening their businesses, compulsory re-training, safety regulation, Covid and now staff shortages. They have cut costs to the barest minimum and in the process lost much of their expertise and capacity to do all but the most basic of tasks. Some of this may well be considered self inflicted, but it is not difficult to see how these decisions got made. The bus industry is not the most 'sexy with a bright future' industry; it is difficult to find and attract the right calibre people with an interest and feel for the product - most high fliers would see travelling by bus as a failure of life and seem to have little or no understanding of the thought processes involved by both providers and users. Of course there are some outliers - but they don't have the capacity to take on the entire industry and the social/political framework that it operates in and not end 'ground down'.

There is simply not enough trade now to be engaging in 'deregulation'. Of course every company likes an effective monopoly - they certainly don't want small operators creaming off sections of their best routes. They will respond aggressively, if it is worth it. With Covid there certainly has been a step change in the big5 starting to look at moving revenue risk from them to whoever else will take it - Local Authorities, Central Government, private company contracts. Why wouldn't they in the circumstances - if you were answerable for a company's financial position in such an uncertain world, I suspect you would too. They have effectively lost their expertise and ability to operate commercially on anything apart from the broadest sense, which is not easily going to come back. The Enhanced Partnership agreements are a sort of way towards Local Authorities taking control of bus routes (by finances) without unduly threatening the existence of the incumbent operators - I think we will have to be a little patient in seeing how this pans out. However, LA financing is also precarious and unlikely to change much, so don't hold your breath on seismic changes, unless they get BSIP money. [Whether they are all in a position to take advantage is another matter].

Small operators providing local services is a bit of a double edged sword - for all that do it well there are plenty who don't. Their routes usually are not effectively part of the wider network under the current dispensation, which is why big5 operators tend to get favoured. Small operators may run a few buses quite well, but once their portfolio increases often find the sheer weight of day to day provision overwhelming. Not an easy task at all, as they find out.

It is difficult to see how the BSIP will improve things in some areas - in the town that I live (pop 75k) the bus service is pretty much an irrelevance to most people - no-one knows where they go or at what times - they run nearly empty. Most people have cars - many households 2 and more. I have seen this elsewhere in my career and it is not good.

Isn't this a key point. Should we now abandon 'de-regulation' ?

 

[M803UYA]

I understand and share your frustrations, even if we differ on some of the details.

However, it has to be understood why these things are, and how they have got into this situation. The big5 PLCs are exhausted. They are risk averse because that is the way of PLCs that are quoted on the Stock Exchange and whose value is at the whim of City analysts. I know one of them is not quoted, but this is owned by a foreign State organisation which is in financial difficulties and would like to sell. The big5 feel totally battered by various Government and other actions over the last 10 or so years - inter alia Concessionary fare re-imbursement levels, threat of franchising of the most profitable areas threatening their businesses, compulsory re-training, safety regulation, Covid and now staff shortages. They have cut costs to the barest minimum and in the process lost much of their expertise and capacity to do all but the most basic of tasks. Some of this may well be considered self inflicted, but it is not difficult to see how these decisions got made. The bus industry is not the most 'sexy with a bright future' industry; it is difficult to find and attract the right calibre people with an interest and feel for the product - most high fliers would see travelling by bus as a failure of life and seem to have little or no understanding of the thought processes involved by both providers and users. Of course there are some outliers - but they don't have the capacity to take on the entire industry and the social/political framework that it operates in and not end 'ground down'.

In my experience of two of the big5 - one is extremely risk averse, drilling down costs to the route, whereas the other has form for risk taking and an acceptance that in that, sometimes you fail but is also very aware of it's costs and rigorous in the control of them. Likewise when it comes to smaller operators - I drive these days but I work for a smaller operator who is one of the better ones around.

My choice is partly because of how poorly the big5 treat their employees and that poor treatment is a major reason why they cannot retain or recruit staff. I spent a long time scheduling buses, but my skills aren't wanted in the industry anymore.

No amount of enhanced pay makes up for incompetent and bullying management practices which sadly prevail. The 'good' people seem to be few and far between in the modern bus industry. There are still some around, but they're not commonplace anymore.

I've managed to read my local BSIP (North Yorkshire) and comparing this to the Somerset one, it is much more refreshing and realistic than the Somerset one. It's also very notable in committing to things even if the bid is unsuccessful.

There is however a lot of focus on the 36 and how to improve it - but that is not where North Yorks needs to focus it's energy. It's a 'killer route' for the operator concerned and one they reinvest in with regular intake of new buses. I feel the challenge North Yorks has is how to prime the more rural services to a level where they need minimal subsidy.

 

[RT4038]

Isn't this a key point. Should we now abandon 'de-regulation' ?

I think we are moving towards this but without fanfare, more defacto

In my experience of two of the big5 - one is extremely risk averse, drilling down costs to the route, whereas the other has form for risk taking and an acceptance that in that, sometimes you fail but is also very aware of it's costs and rigorous in the control of them. Likewise when it comes to smaller operators - I drive these days but I work for a smaller operator who is one of the better ones around.

Sadly I suspect the amount of risk taking by that operator is much less than before.

My choice is partly because of how poorly the big5 treat their employees and that poor treatment is a major reason why they cannot retain or recruit staff. I spent a long time scheduling buses, but my skills aren't wanted in the industry anymore.

The industry probably needs you skills; it just doesn't have the expertise and capacity to realise that!

No amount of enhanced pay makes up for incompetent and bullying management practices which sadly prevail. The 'good' people seem to be few and far between in the modern bus industry. There are still some around, but they're not commonplace anymore.

As said already - the expertise and capacity is lacking in most areas of the management and administration of the industry

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Very interesting to hear the views of @M803UYA and @RT4038 - always two of the more informed commenters.

In terms of the local authorities, I know that certain councils have essentially been hollowed out; they simply haven't the people to work up the BSIPs internally. Having the comments of @820KDV also highlights the challenge and explains what the LAs have to do and why they have had to put so much info into the documentation. Not only that, the workload and skills are often not available and so contracting out elements of the work is the only way to achieve it.

It still doesn't really excuse Dorset's provider from cutting and pasting stuff from the Somerset BSIP. It also doesn't excuse some of the content of the Somerset one; we can be aspirational and visionary and that is the firm steer being given but ultimately, ambition has to be tempered with a bit of realism.

I'd certainly be interested to see the BSIP of North Yorkshire. The county of my birth, I have often kept up with the developments. Woeful in the post dereg era (despite subsidising a reasonable network), they were getting better until the sugar rush of the RBC funding in the early 2000s. A splurge of dubious new services (Sunday service from Richmond to Barnard Castle to get your eyes tested?) came about but since 2010, the network has shrunk markedly as first the Sunday and Evening services went, then they wielded the knife further. In some parts of the county, they've been lucky to have two of the more enterprising operators in Transdev and Go Ahead (EYMS) and a couple of decent indies but the contraction of Arriva and various small firms going pop has exacerbated a trend of decline in many areas. If anyone has a link (I looked but failed), it would be gratefully received.

 

[domcoop7]

As someone who was involved in writing a Bus Service Improvement Plan it has been very interesting following the comments here. I work for a unitary authority which was formerly a large shire county. We don't have a dominant operator although we do have subsidiaries of three of the main groups operating in our area. We also have a large family run bus company who, in mileage terms, is our second biggest operator.

We did employ a consultant to assist us with the production of our bus service improvement plan. There is no way that we had the resource internally to complete such a document. Whilst the BSIP itself runs to nearly 50 pages there is also 140+ pages of statistics and data behind the actual plan which we have made available to the DfT but which we haven't published as we are not required to do so and such a large document, we are advised, would cause problems for our website.

Our consultants did considerable work on obtaining data from various sources which are beyond the knowledge of staff in the Passenger Transport Unit as cuts over the past 10 years have left us heavily biased towards day-to-day operations, with the former policy and strategy team gone. However, all of the content about our current bus services and our plans and asks for funding were written by PTU staff whilst still doing all of their day jobs.

As part of the process, we wrote to all our councillors, and our town and parish councils, all of whom were invited to suggest how the bus services in their area could be improved. Some of these choose to ask the public in their area to contribute their ideas, others replied based on what people email them about and inevitably some didn’t engage. These responses have been very useful is setting a direction for our BSIP and has provided lots of specific projects which we will consider when we get to the Enhanced Partnership Scheme stage.

We also conducted a public survey using an online platform where we tried to capture as much data as possible from non-bus users, including business owners. If we are to grow bus use in our area, we have to understand all the barriers which prevent people in the bus. Obviously, there will always be some people who wouldn't be seen dead on a bus, but there are many more who would make use of the bus if it better met their needs. As with the councillor and local council work, we got some very useful pointers from this public survey, including making contact with a number of employers and opening dialogue with the Department for Work and Pensions.

Internally we have also been having weekly meetings with various Heads of Service. These have included people from Highways Operations (who are responsible for the current road network) Highway Planning (who design new road schemes), Spatial Planning (who set the policy and design standards for housing developments etc), Business & Regeneration and Active Travel. For some the BSIP offers an opportunity to expand and enhance existing work, but for others considering the bus as part of their work was something very new, but which all are very keen to embrace.

There has been some criticism here of the ambition and “bonkers” nature of BSIPs. Please remember however, throughout the process the DfT kept emphasising that our plans should be ambitious. They tell us successes in the coming couple of years which they can trumpet will put them in a very strong position with the Treasury when it comes to further funding. Of course, that doesn’t mean that “bonkers” is good, but might explain how some of these got into various BSIPs.

We, perhaps, have been very fortunate that our cabinet member and the leader of our council are supportive off the concept of improving buses. However, they and we as officers, see this document as something which we can use to encourage politicians at various levels to take the bus seriously. We know that the DfT doesn't have a bottomless pit of money and for some of these schemes we may be looking for contributions from our town councils, indeed the DfT has told us that if schemes are partially funded by others that proves they are really important, and in turn they are more likely to contribute too. Glossy may not sway the DfT, but it can be useful elsewhere.

We have also, of course, engaged with our bus operators and they have been very keen to see an ambitious BSIP. Indeed, when they saw one of the earlier drafts, their main comment was that it was not ambitious enough. Remember, in the case of the big groups, documents such as the BSIP help them at national level obtain spending for their subsidiary. Likewise our TOCs, albeit one (fortunately the one with the majority of stations) is much more engaged than the other have been part of the process.

There has been comment here about the style of various publications. The council’s in house graphic design team produced our document and as such it follows the council’s design criteria. We knew that there needed some illustrations, and many possible photographs were provided to the designer, but they had complete freedom in how many and how they were used. Apart us from asking to swap two photos between pages so that they better match the neighbouring text the appearance of the BSIP is entirely down to the designer.

I hope that you will understand that I don't wish to identify which council I work for, and indeed that isn't relevant to the more general comments above. So far no one has analysed our BSIP however the council has been named a couple of times in this thread; I thank you for the complimentary remarks made. I am sure that there are things we could do better in our support and delivery of local bus services, and we know that a little more time and resource could have resulted in a BSIP but that is not where we are.

As a closing note I have spent just over half of my career in the Passenger Transport Unit of the council and the other half with a major bus operator at one of the large groups, so I have seen both sides of the coin. I look forward to peoples further comments on bus service improvement plans as it is both interesting and informative, as I hope this has been.

Thank you for that post, it was very informative!

Isn't this a key point. Should we now abandon 'de-regulation' ?

I believe "Bus Back Better" is the beginning of the end of de-regulation anyway. All areas need either Franchising or some form of Quality Partnership (with a skew towards going for enhanced).

Like with Covid, and like we see on the Railways, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're Stagecoach Manchester, are you going to bother investing another penny in services that are going to be taken away, even if the judicial review succeeds or there are delays in implementing Franchising? If you're Stagecoach Merseyside & South Lancs, the same, why invest now and find out in 12 months that Liverpool City Region is moving to Franchising?

If you're Arriva operating in the North West, again, how can you justify investment when part of your area will go Franchising, another part may go soon, and the remainder is too small to get any return on?

And then when an area in partnership finds it's owning companies haven't bothered investing (for the reasons set out above), the local authority will surely suggest the only option is to move to Enhanced Partnership. The owning groups will want to chuck the minimum possible into it and the service will stagnate as they'll have a quasi de-facto monopoly. In five years time, depending on the budgets available, more authorities are going to say Enhanced Partnership doesn't bring enough benefits - we need Franchising.

My prediction is give it 5 years, and once Greater Manchester comes into operation, the other PTE areas (except West Midlands) will be in Franchising, which has knock-on effects to neighbouring shire counties and before long "pure" deregulation will be very much the exception.

 

[M803UYA]

Very interesting to hear the views of @M803UYA and @RT4038 - always two of the more informed commenters.

In terms of the local authorities, I know that certain councils have essentially been hollowed out; they simply haven't the people to work up the BSIPs internally. Having the comments of @820KDV also highlights the challenge and explains what the LAs have to do and why they have had to put so much info into the documentation. Not only that, the workload and skills are often not available and so contracting out elements of the work is the only way to achieve it.

It still doesn't really excuse Dorset's provider from cutting and pasting stuff from the Somerset BSIP. It also doesn't excuse some of the content of the Somerset one; we can be aspirational and visionary and that is the firm steer being given but ultimately, ambition has to be tempered with a bit of realism.

I'd certainly be interested to see the BSIP of North Yorkshire. The county of my birth, I have often kept up with the developments. Woeful in the post dereg era (despite subsidising a reasonable network), they were getting better until the sugar rush of the RBC funding in the early 2000s. A splurge of dubious new services (Sunday service from Richmond to Barnard Castle to get your eyes tested?) came about but since 2010, the network has shrunk markedly as first the Sunday and Evening services went, then they wielded the knife further. In some parts of the county, they've been lucky to have two of the more enterprising operators in Transdev and Go Ahead (EYMS) and a couple of decent indies but the contraction of Arriva and various small firms going pop has exacerbated a trend of decline in many areas. If anyone has a link (I looked but failed), it would be gratefully received.

This may help, though they have made you hunt for it. https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/info/bus-service-improvement-plan
At the bottom it's a downloadable document as a PDF although there might be some benefit in having individual pages.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This may help, though they have made you hunt for it. https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/info/bus-service-improvement-plan
At the bottom it's a downloadable document as a PDF although there might be some benefit in having individual pages.

Thank you very much - just a very quick skim read through.

It's actually quite a sensible document and set of proposals. The focus on improving stuff in Harrogate BC area and Scarborough where there are sufficient punters makes sense. Of course, there are some places that perhaps need a bit of love. The decline of services around Stokesley has been shocking during Arriva's tenure. The main route to Middlesbrough was half hourly with a fast express - now hourly and slower as it's tied into covering other withdrawn routes in Nunthorpe, and Stokesley falls off the public transport map of an evening. Stokesley to Guisborough was hourly - now 4 journeys a day.

Hopefully, and I'm not one for advocating spending money on vanity projects and running empty buses hither and thither, they can get some funding to put right some of the issues. It's a very large county and sparsely populated. It's difficult to serve. There are two good major firms....and Arriva.

 

[markymark2000]

Given the discussion about advertising and how it should be done by operators, here is an example of this going badly wrong.

The main operator are intentionally putting up flashy posters and putting below bare basic information for other operators making them look bad. So then the independsnt has to spend more money rectifying the issue to make it so that both times can be shown side by side with ease.

Down side of this? Passengers don't know when the next bus is without looking at potentially multiple timetables and having to much promotional material thrown at them that it distracts from the information that is vitally important, the bus times.

https://www.facebook.com/1057609551012643/posts/4429670113806553/

(Not sure how to embed Facebook post so that it shows up. Can't copy and paste either as it included photos and I am on phone. Sorry)


I agree with the idea and I think that Hampshire has the best arrangement that I have seen. Where there is multiple operators, the council does the bus timetables. Where it is only one operator, they do the timetables. Significantly better mix than the shambles that is going on in Harrogate (and previously seen in Warrington) when the main operator and local competition have an active dislike for eachother.

 

[duncombec]

Given the discussion about advertising and how it should be done by operators, here is an example of this going badly wrong.

The main operator are intentionally putting up flashy posters and putting below bare basic information for other operators making them look bad. So then the independsnt has to spend more money rectifying the issue to make it so that both times can be shown side by side with ease.

Down side of this? Passengers don't know when the next bus is without looking at potentially multiple timetables and having to much promotional material thrown at them that it distracts from the information that is vitally important, the bus times.

https://www.facebook.com/1057609551012643/posts/4429670113806553/

(Not sure how to embed Facebook post so that it shows up. Can't copy and paste either as it included photos and I am on phone. Sorry)


I agree with the idea and I think that Hampshire has the best arrangement that I have seen. Where there is multiple operators, the council does the bus timetables. Where it is only one operator, they do the timetables. Significantly better mix than the shambles that is going on in Harrogate (and previously seen in Warrington) when the main operator and local competition have an active dislike for eachother.

I seem to recall after extensive debate last time this came up (perhaps on the Transdev thread, or was there a particular thread for this little spat), it transpired that the timetable cases in question were owned by the larger operator, and the smaller operator has neither right nor authority to use them, rendering its complaint moot. Was it not decided that the colour of the case determined the owner?

Whether one or both are to blame, it is clearly a quiet time in North Yorkshire if there is time available for the 74th attempt at playground behaviour most of us grew out of whilst still of single-digit age...

 

[markymark2000]

Whether one or both are to blame, it is clearly a quiet time in North Yorkshire if there is time available for the 74th attempt at playground behaviour most of us grew out of whilst still of single-digit age...

I fully agree but it just goes to show what is happening in some areas when competition is in place. I wanted to highlight the other side of the debate as it is ok saying operators need to take charge of timetables but in some cases it's detrimental to passengers when there is playground behaviour like this going on.

Kind of highlights my suggestion for a hybrid model rather than operators or councils.

 

[M803UYA]

I fully agree but it just goes to show what is happening in some areas when competition is in place. I wanted to highlight the other side of the debate as it is ok saying operators need to take charge of timetables but in some cases it's detrimental to passengers when there is playground behaviour like this going on.

Kind of highlights my suggestion for a hybrid model rather than operators or councils.

Yes, it's difficult to negotiate with small children...... My example was meant in the same vein as supermarkets. I don't visit Aldi and expect them to advertise M&S and vice versa. Likewise I don't go into Burger King and see adverts for Mcdonalds.

I guess that is one issue with bus services being viewed as no different than a sweet shop... in practice they aren't and the concept of an overall service is what is privately provided, rather than publicly. Where Transdev operates into Leeds, it's fairly clear who is responsible for that infrastructure and it's maintenance.

 

[M803UYA]

Results of the Bus Service Improvment Plan (BSIP) have been announced.

BSIP funding announced - Bus & Coach Buyer

Thirty-one counties, city regions and unitary authorities have been chosen for the Government’s Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) funding. The successful areas have been chosen because of their ambition to repeat the success achieved in London, according to the Government. In its announcement...

www.busandcoachbuyer.com

BSIP funding announced​

Posted by Chris Peat on Mon 4th April 2022 - 12:42PM | No Comments

Thirty-one counties, city regions and unitary authorities have been chosen for the Government’s Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) funding.


The successful areas have been chosen because of their ambition to repeat the success achieved in London, according to the Government. In its announcement of the BSIP allocation, the DfT said areas not showing ‘sufficient ambition’, including for improvements to bus priority, would not be funded.


Areas among those set to receive funding today to help deliver on their Bus Service Improvement Plans include Portsmouth Stoke-on-Trent, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, the West Midlands, Liverpool City Region, North East and North of Tyne Combined Authorities, Reading, Norfolk, Luton, York and Warrington.


The indicative BSIP funding allocations are:

• Blackburn with Darwen and Lancashire: £34.2m
• Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole: £8.9m
• Brighton and Hove: £27.9m
• Central Bedfordshire: £3.7m
• City of York: £17.4m
• Cornwall (including Isles of Scilly): £13.3m
• Derby City: £7m
• Derbyshire: £47m
• Devon: £14.1m
• East Sussex: £41.4m
• Greater Manchester: £94.8m
• Hertfordshire: £29.7m
• Kent: £35.1m
• Liverpool City Region: £12.3m
• Luton: £19.1m
• Norfolk: £49.6m
• North East and North of Tyne: £163.5m
• North East Lincolnshire: £4.7m
• Nottingham City: £11.4m
• Nottinghamshire: £18.7m
• Oxfordshire: £12.7m
• Portsmouth: £48.3m
• Reading: £26.3m
• Somerset: £11.9m
• Stoke-on-Trent: £31.7m
• Warrington: £16.2m
• West Berkshire: £2.6m
• West Midlands: £87.9m
• West of England and North Somerset: £105.5m
• West Sussex: £17.4m
• West Yorkshire: £70m

Mayoral combined authorities will also receive money for buses from the £5.7bn City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements, which are also confirmed today.


Improvements in the pilot area, Cornwall, will start next week, funded by £23.5m from the Government. From Sunday 10 April, most bus fares in the county will be slashed, with short hop fares down by 20%, longer journeys costing up to 40% less and some bus passes cut by almost half. Passes for unlimited bus travel across Cornwall will cost £5 per day (down from £9) or £20 per week.


Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, said: “Buses are the most popular way of getting around in this country – but for too long people outside of London have had a raw deal.


“The investment we’re making today to ramp up the bus revolution will drive down fares at a time when people’s finances are tight and help connect communities across England.”


The Government is also confirming £5.7bn in funding to level up local bus, tram, rail, walking and cycling networks in England’s eight city regions.


A CPT spokesperson said: “Today is an important milestone in the Government’s National Bus Strategy. Operators are ready to engage with successful local authorities to deliver their joint plans for improvement in bus services as quickly as possible to help deliver important goals such as the drive to net zero and economic growth across the country.


“It is important that we remember though that there will be millions of passengers left disappointed by today’s announcement as their local area missed out on funding. It’s vital that the Government now clearly sets out future funding plans and policy initiatives for delivering its National Bus Strategy, including measures to reduce car use. This will ensure that today’s announcement is the beginning not the end of plans to improve bus services across the country. A good place to start would be to confirm funding for the industry’s plan to deliver simpler and price capped ticketing across the country – a move that would improve bus services for passengers everywhere.”

 

[Ridercross]

Sadly, living in one of the counties that will be getting nothing, I fear the worst now. With the recovery funding ending in October, it looks like there will be mass service withdrawals or frequency cuts to already low frequency routes. We have already lost most Evening and Sunday services and I guess many rural daytime routes will go.

So much for all passengers benefiting across the country!

 

[820KDV]

Sadly, living in one of the counties that will be getting nothing, I fear the worst now. With the recovery funding ending in October, it looks like there will be mass service withdrawals or frequency cuts to already low frequency routes. We have already lost most Evening and Sunday services and I guess many rural daytime routes will go.

So much for all passengers benefiting across the country!

As someone working in another Local Transport Authority (LTA) which didn't get anything, I don't know the details of any conditions BSIP funding is coming with. But, in discussions with DfT they have been adamant that BSIP money isn't to be used to prop up existing services.

They also suggested that the successful LTAs won't just be getting a sum of money to spend as they wish, but that it will be along the lines of £x for bus lanes in town X, £y for turning the 123 route corridor into a high frequency Superbus route etc. I think that's why they are saying "indicative funding" because if, in our example, the town x bus lane project meets with major local opposition and is not proceeded with, or is perhaps reduced to new traffic signals with bus priority at a couple of junctions, then that money will be back in the pot.

And even without BSIP funding the "bad news" letter includes a list of demands and things we must do!

 

[stuu]

Is this the first year allocation or this is? My local authority (Somerset), bid for £161m, so to receive £11m is somewhat different. But then some of their ideas were pretty mad anyway

 

[Llandudno]

It appears as though Derbyshire is one of the biggest beneficiaries for a county and population of its size £47m.

Maybe because there are large parts of the County within the Peak District National Park has something to do with it?
Used wisely it could provide decent public transport along the A6 corridor between Matlock and Buxton and put to bed any pie in the sky ideas of closing the popular Monsal Trail and reopening the rail line.

 

[carlberry]

As someone working in another Local Transport Authority (LTA) which didn't get anything, I don't know the details of any conditions BSIP funding is coming with. But, in discussions with DfT they have been adamant that BSIP money isn't to be used to prop up existing services.

They also suggested that the successful LTAs won't just be getting a sum of money to spend as they wish, but that it will be along the lines of £x for bus lanes in town X, £y for turning the 123 route corridor into a high frequency Superbus route etc. I think that's why they are saying "indicative funding" because if, in our example, the town x bus lane project meets with major local opposition and is not proceeded with, or is perhaps reduced to new traffic signals with bus priority at a couple of junctions, then that money will be back in the pot.

And even without BSIP funding the "bad news" letter includes a list of demands and things we must do!

It was always going to be the case that the government was only interested in the good PR from appearing to spend some money with any issues (missing out completely, not delivering etc) rapidly becoming the local authorities issue.

Is this the first year allocation or this is? My local authority (Somerset), bid for £161m, so to receive £11m is somewhat different. But then some of their ideas were pretty mad anyway

I suspect that's the total for the whole period. To be fair the government did encourage off the wall ideas and didn't want anything boring like 'save the serves we already have'.