Bus Service Improvement Plans (BSIPs)

[carlberry]

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.

I'm very suspicious that 2 counties (Lancashire and Somerset) appear to have produced reports that are an identical length! Are they from the same consultancy?

 

[domcoop7]

I'm very suspicious that 2 counties (Lancashire and Somerset) appear to have produced reports that are an identical length! Are they from the same consultancy?

Somerset's doesn't say to be honest, but it is iffy!

Also had a look at Greater Manchester's.

As expected it mainly waffles on about bus franchising.

It is ever more peppered with buzzwords than Lancashire's, including 58 mentions of the word "London", 25 mentions of the expression "right mix", 119 of "ambition", 5 of "mobility as a service", 20 of "digital", 28 "decarbonisation" and 24 "travel hub".

However, take all the management gobbledegook out, and you're left with "we think we'll get bus use up by x million %, and fares down to £1.80, but how we do it will be explained only once Franchising is in place".

 

[GusB]

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.

It all seems a bit woolly, but page 7 of said document comes up with this:

Lancashire County Council and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council have worked in partnership with all of Lancashire's local bus operators to jointly develop a Bus Service Improvement Plan for their areas.

This document is the first step in delivering on the National Bus Strategy and will be key to delivering on bus priority and improvement measures that will, over time, make public transport the mode of choice in Lancashire. It provides the technical basis for the Enhanced Partnership that each authority intends to make with its bus operators by April 2022.

Although the Covid-19 crisis has led to many challenges for public transport we now have to look to the future and what we can do locally to "Bus Back Better" and deliver our bus service in new ways and in partnership with all our operators and other stakeholders.

Our first aim is to grow the market back to pre-pandemic levels of patronage and deliver a more sustainable network, which will underpin further investment.

This plan will deliver a multi-million pound investment in Lancashire's public transport system. We will develop our interurban bus networks between our major towns along Superbus principles. We will underpin these services with extensive bus priority measures to make them quicker and more reliable.

As well as the interurban networks we intend to improve many other local bus services, including evening and Sunday service enhancements and increased frequencies where appropriate. We will build on the tendered network that serves many of our rural towns and villages and we will support the investment in low and zero-emission vehicles with operators.

We will improve the customers’ waiting environment, because this is often the first point of contact with the network, and make it accessible for all. Information both before and during the journey will be improved, with better information at bus stops and more comprehensive journey-planning information. We will provide more real time information across the county and ‘next stop’ audio-visual announcements on bus.

To ensure buses become easier and more attractive to use we will develop multi-operator and other ticketing initiatives, including improved discounts to young people.

We will investigate new ways of delivering bus services that meet local demands and markets not already served. Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) is just one option to consider for those hard-to-reach areas. We will continue to support our Community Transport services for those less able to access bus services and we will also make it easier to combine travelling by bus with walking and cycling as part of their overall journey.

The key theme running through our plan will be people. We must ensure that the services being provided meet local needs. Therefore we will continue to engage with user groups, and each authority will establish a Passengers’ Charter.

Our Bus Service Improvement Plan will be updated annually to enable us to remain flexible to changes and demands but with the right investment to deliver these changes we will go towards making Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen the best places to live, work, visit and prosper.

More detail of what we want to achieve can be seen in the Bus Service Improvement Plan below.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I'm very suspicious that 2 counties (Lancashire and Somerset) appear to have produced reports that are an identical length! Are they from the same consultancy?

Dorset's is a different length, but clearly was done by the same people as Somerset's - some of the appendices mention improving Yeovil and Taunton bus stations as well as the need for an all-Somerset bus app!

 

[carlberry]

Dorset's is a different length, but clearly was done by the same people as Somerset's - some of the appendices mention improving Yeovil and Taunton bus stations as well as the need for an all-Somerset bus app!

I would hope that Dorset decided not to pay anybody and just to nick Somerset's when it was finished. This would be a good use of public money. However I suspect they've paid a load of money for something that's been copied and pasted and, to round it off, none of the counciillours who will enthuiastically promote it over the next few months have even bothered to read what they've got the local taxpayers to pay for!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Dorset's is a different length, but clearly was done by the same people as Somerset's - some of the appendices mention improving Yeovil and Taunton bus stations as well as the need for an all-Somerset bus app!

Oh dear - Appendix 8 would appear to be from Somerset. Also mention of improved links to Exmoor....

Perhaps it was a buy one, get one half price? One thing the Dorset BSIP illustrates is quite how woeful DCC is in supporting local bus services but we knew that already.

I like the aim of having turn up and travel frequencies (every 15 mins) between Yeovil and Sherborne... given that it's every two hours on a Saturday

 

[NorthOxonian]

I like the aim of having turn up and travel frequencies (every 15 mins) between Yeovil and Sherborne... given that it's every two hours on a Saturday

It's probably more realistic than having similar frequencies on the Bridgwater to Minehead leg of the "Somerset Triangle" - though only just...

 

[Goldfish62]

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?

To be fair to Somerset the DfT did state that it expects BSIPs to be ambitious.

Manufacturers are now increasingly willing to offer 15+ year battery warranties and we're rapidly reaching the position where the whole life costs of electric buses are less than for diesel.

That said I agree that it's Pie in the Sky as regards Somerset given their lack of interest in bus services over the years.

 

[RT4038]

I think we all have to remember that Local Authorities have been subjected to budget cut upon budget cut, and their priority has been inevitably on maintaining statutory services such as education, social care and emergency services. Shire Authorities (in particular) that have had no or little money to subsidise and promote public transport will probably not have the PT expertise left either. For the Government to expect the 70+ Authorities to produce BSIPs in a record time, stretching Consultancy resources to the limit, legitimately amending the game plan along the way as issues arose, is not going to get well thought out plans. But if they take 5 years to produce masterpiece documents, the moment will be lost that Government is taking interest in Buses. Instead of poking fun, take a moment to consider the conditions in which these documents have had to be compiled, financial appraisals, engagement with operators, politicians and the general public; all whilst doing the day job too.

 

[domcoop7]

I think we all have to remember that Local Authorities have been subjected to budget cut upon budget cut, and their priority has been inevitably on maintaining statutory services such as education, social care and emergency services. Shire Authorities (in particular) that have had no or little money to subsidise and promote public transport will probably not have the PT expertise left either. For the Government to expect the 70+ Authorities to produce BSIPs in a record time, stretching Consultancy resources to the limit, legitimately amending the game plan along the way as issues arose, is not going to get well thought out plans. But if they take 5 years to produce masterpiece documents, the moment will be lost that Government is taking interest in Buses. Instead of poking fun, take a moment to consider the conditions in which these documents have had to be compiled, financial appraisals, engagement with operators, politicians and the general public; all whilst doing the day job too.

I can see that argument. On the other hand, do glossy, buzzword-laden cut-and-paste consultants reports achieve a better outcome than if the authority just knocked something up in house?

If I worked at the DfT, I can't see me being swayed to give Anytownshire extra money because their plan is offering a "transformative step-change in decarbonised service provision, leveraging the technological enhancement of Mobility-as-a-Service in an increasingly online connected sphere of Right-Mode-Right-Place London style transport connectivity". I'd be much more impressed if Country Bumpkin Council just said "we want to paint the bus shelters, subsidise night buses to the Town Centre from the University and nearby suburbs, and put interavailable smart ticketing on and we reckon it will cost £750,000 over three years and attract 5% more market share".

Local authorities complain about budget cuts, but then bung W S Atkins £75k (of the budget that's been cut) to open their BSIP template, click "Find and Replace" and insert the local authority's name in it. Doesn't ring true.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I can see that argument. On the other hand, do glossy, buzzword-laden cut-and-paste consultants reports achieve a better outcome than if the authority just knocked something up in house?

If I worked at the DfT, I can't see me being swayed to give Anytownshire extra money because their plan is offering a "transformative step-change in decarbonised service provision, leveraging the technological enhancement of Mobility-as-a-Service in an increasingly online connected sphere of Right-Mode-Right-Place London style transport connectivity". I'd be much more impressed if Country Bumpkin Council just said "we want to paint the bus shelters, subsidise night buses to the Town Centre from the University and nearby suburbs, and put interavailable smart ticketing on and we reckon it will cost £750,000 over three years and attract 5% more market share".

Local authorities complain about budget cuts, but then bung W S Atkins £75k (of the budget that's been cut) to open their BSIP template, click "Find and Replace" and insert the local authority's name in it. Doesn't ring true.

I suppose one issue is that the places that make sensible BSIPs and don't just outsource it to consultants are probably going to be places that are already doing alright when it comes to public transport.

Oxfordshire and Wiltshire both have good BSIPs - but they're both places with higher bus usage than demographics might predict. Should they get support over counties like Dorset and Somerset, where the councils may care less but because of that residents have greater need?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I can see that argument. On the other hand, do glossy, buzzword-laden cut-and-paste consultants reports achieve a better outcome than if the authority just knocked something up in house?

If I worked at the DfT, I can't see me being swayed to give Anytownshire extra money because their plan is offering a "transformative step-change in decarbonised service provision, leveraging the technological enhancement of Mobility-as-a-Service in an increasingly online connected sphere of Right-Mode-Right-Place London style transport connectivity". I'd be much more impressed if Country Bumpkin Council just said "we want to paint the bus shelters, subsidise night buses to the Town Centre from the University and nearby suburbs, and put interavailable smart ticketing on and we reckon it will cost £750,000 over three years and attract 5% more market share".

Local authorities complain about budget cuts, but then bung W S Atkins £75k (of the budget that's been cut) to open their BSIP template, click "Find and Replace" and insert the local authority's name in it. Doesn't ring true.

I have seen such documents, produced at great expense for a developer in support of a planning appication. I did not take any pleasure (honest) is asking why a suburb of Bristol was referred to in an impact assessment for a cinema development in Stoke-on-Trent. So it was clearly a 'cut and paste' job except they missed one of the 'find and replace' entries. Whatever you do, don't check the maths to see if the individual numbers add up to the total promised (in my case housing capacity of individual sites and the total number of houses to be built across the regeneration area).

 

[domcoop7]

I suppose one issue is that the places that make sensible BSIPs and don't just outsource it to consultants are probably going to be places that are already doing alright when it comes to public transport.

Oxfordshire and Wiltshire both have good BSIPs - but they're both places with higher bus usage than demographics might predict. Should they get support over counties like Dorset and Somerset, where the councils may care less but because of that residents have greater need?

Well actually I think the answer is yes. Probably not a popular view, but if some councils do things better, they should be allowed to carry on doing so. If some councils make a hash of it, their voters should kick them out at the next election. Too many elected bodies, from councils up to the Scottish Government seem to just plod along and then if it goes wrong blame "the Government" or "Westminster".

 

[carlberry]

I think we all have to remember that Local Authorities have been subjected to budget cut upon budget cut, and their priority has been inevitably on maintaining statutory services such as education, social care and emergency services. Shire Authorities (in particular) that have had no or little money to subsidise and promote public transport will probably not have the PT expertise left either. For the Government to expect the 70+ Authorities to produce BSIPs in a record time, stretching Consultancy resources to the limit, legitimately amending the game plan along the way as issues arose, is not going to get well thought out plans. But if they take 5 years to produce masterpiece documents, the moment will be lost that Government is taking interest in Buses. Instead of poking fun, take a moment to consider the conditions in which these documents have had to be compiled, financial appraisals, engagement with operators, politicians and the general public; all whilst doing the day job too.

Its a very good point, however it doesn't cover why (for example) the people who asked for and paid for the Dorset BSIP didn't even both to read it and notice that parts of it have clearly been ripped off from a Somerset one before publishing it.
In truth the Government hasn't got any interest in buses; if it did then it wouldn't let local Authorities look after them. The BSIP idea is a very convenient way of giving the impression that they're intrested, but making sure that if there are any questions about what's been delivered (or not) and who's going to pay for it long term then it goes back to local government who didnt have any money before, have had their income from central government reduced and have no control over their ability to raise revenue because of central government control.

 

[asw22]

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

Page 14 has an interesting paragraph

However, the operation of local bus services has resulted in a wide range of tickets, where many people don’t know the priceb efore they travel. This information is not currently provided on the network because, to remain impartial, TfWM would have to advertise all operator fares, which is too complex.

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

Indeed from personal experience, the price of my West Yorkshire (Metrocard / MCard) bus and train season ticket in 2003 was £65 per month compared to £145 per month now which is not an incentive to encourage public transport use.
Over the same time period petrol has changed from around 80 per litre in 2003 to 120p per litre in early 2021 (only recently increasing sharply).
So TGW is rightly quoting that the real costs of using public transport has risen significantly over time.

Petrol Prices

 

[RT4038]

I can see that argument. On the other hand, do glossy, buzzword-laden cut-and-paste consultants reports achieve a better outcome than if the authority just knocked something up in house?

If I worked at the DfT, I can't see me being swayed to give Anytownshire extra money because their plan is offering a "transformative step-change in decarbonised service provision, leveraging the technological enhancement of Mobility-as-a-Service in an increasingly online connected sphere of Right-Mode-Right-Place London style transport connectivity". I'd be much more impressed if Country Bumpkin Council just said "we want to paint the bus shelters, subsidise night buses to the Town Centre from the University and nearby suburbs, and put interavailable smart ticketing on and we reckon it will cost £750,000 over three years and attract 5% more market share".

Local authorities complain about budget cuts, but then bung W S Atkins £75k (of the budget that's been cut) to open their BSIP template, click "Find and Replace" and insert the local authority's name in it. Doesn't ring true.

I don't think you quite understand the BSIP process, what it has to include, the engagement processes with operators, politicians and public, and the relationship with Enhanced Partnerships with bus operators. Unfortunately it is not some kind of simple shopping list that can be made up at the whim of Local Authority officers. I rather suspect that many Local Authorities do not have the expertise or capacity to 'knock something up in house'. Hence the consultants.

 

[WatcherZero]

Somerset's doesn't say to be honest, but it is iffy!

Also had a look at Greater Manchester's.

As expected it mainly waffles on about bus franchising.

It is ever more peppered with buzzwords than Lancashire's, including 58 mentions of the word "London", 25 mentions of the expression "right mix", 119 of "ambition", 5 of "mobility as a service", 20 of "digital", 28 "decarbonisation" and 24 "travel hub".

However, take all the management gobbledegook out, and you're left with "we think we'll get bus use up by x million %, and fares down to £1.80, but how we do it will be explained only once Franchising is in place".

You obviously havent read chapter 5 very thoroughly;
Branding strategy,
Targets and maps of routes to strengthen, shows which routes express services will operate, rapid transit and Quality Corridors, target of raising the proportion of people living with 400m of a 10 minute or better bus frequency from around 35% to 60% and with 20 minute evening and weekend services from 21% to 60%.
Target of 2000 more bus stops to be made accessible, plan to look at bus PID displays, CCTV and call points.
Creation of the concept and rolling out of 'Travel Hubs' being local interchanges where bus routes converge on rail and tram stations as a secondary interchange to the central bus stations.
Electric bus rollout strategy and phasing plan
Fare strategy
Revenue and capital budget for the next decade including the expectation that subsidy would rise by about £11m per year and anticipating £30m per year of ongoing Co-vid related costs and revenue downturn for the next couple of years.

 

[Goldfish62]

I don't think you quite understand the BSIP process, what it has to include, the engagement processes with operators, politicians and public, and the relationship with Enhanced Partnerships with bus operators. Unfortunately it is not some kind of simple shopping list that can be made up at the whim of Local Authority officers. I rather suspect that many Local Authorities do not have the expertise or capacity to 'knock something up in house'. Hence the consultants.

Absolutely. Local authority transport teams have been decimated over the past decade and many will have had neither the time nor expertise to produce their BSIPs within the ridiculously short timescale dictated by the DfT.

 

[domcoop7]

You obviously havent read chapter 5 very thoroughly;
Branding strategy,
Targets and maps of routes to strengthen, shows which routes express services will operate, rapid transit and Quality Corridors, target of raising the proportion of people living with 400m of a 10 minute or better bus frequency from around 35% to 60% and with 20 minute evening and weekend services from 21% to 60%.
Target of 2000 more bus stops to be made accessible, plan to look at bus PID displays, CCTV and call points.
Creation of the concept and rolling out of 'Travel Hubs' being local interchanges where bus routes converge on rail and tram stations as a secondary interchange to the central bus stations.
Electric bus rollout strategy and phasing plan
Fare strategy
Revenue and capital budget for the next decade including the expectation that subsidy would rise by about £11m per year and anticipating £30m per year of ongoing Co-vid related costs and revenue downturn for the next couple of years.

Actually that's probably fair. After plodding through the Lancashire one and reading the first two - three chapters of GM, I must confess I was beginning to lose the will to live and just skimmed through the rest. Particularly when I saw the phrase "Mobility as a Service", and the speech bubble pictograms, etc.

 

[Citistar]

Absolutely. Local authority transport teams have been decimated over the past decade and many will have had neither the time nor expertise to produce their BSIPs within the ridiculously short timescale dictated by the DfT.

This sweeping generalisation is not my experience. Both of the LTA areas in which i work have vastly bigger transport teams than they had a decade ago and yet they still don't function to an adequate level. Staff at one are more interested in buying their own coaches to upset local coach operators and engineering bus service tendering to exclude small operators than working with anybody constructively.

 

[markymark2000]

This sweeping generalisation is not my experience. Both of the LTA areas in which i work have vastly bigger transport teams than they had a decade ago and yet they still don't function to an adequate level. Staff at one are more interested in buying their own coaches to upset local coach operators and engineering bus service tendering to exclude small operators than working with anybody constructively.

Create a great bus network for people to use < Play political games to isolate a select few companies whom don't lick backside

 

[Goldfish62]

This sweeping generalisation is not my experience. Both of the LTA areas in which i work have vastly bigger transport teams than they had a decade ago and yet they still don't function to an adequate level. Staff at one are more interested in buying their own coaches to upset local coach operators and engineering bus service tendering to exclude small operators than working with anybody constructively.

I stand by my "sweeping generalisation" because although there may be those which are somehow awash with money (eg "PTEs") the vast majority are not. This is clearly evidenced by some transport teams ceasing to exist as an entity and some councils withdrawing all local bus subsidy.

If you went to your nearest ATCO meeting with this view you would be laughed out of the room.

 

[RT4038]

This sweeping generalisation is not my experience. Both of the LTA areas in which i work have vastly bigger transport teams than they had a decade ago and yet they still don't function to an adequate level.

That is not my experience at all (in Shire counties). The transport team may have got bigger, but usually because other non public transport functions related to Education, Special Needs and Concessionary travel have been transferred in. Team members with PT expertise have invariably gone down in numbers.

Staff at one are more interested in buying their own coaches to upset local coach operators and engineering bus service tendering to exclude small operators than working with anybody constructively.

In my experience the former is usually due to high prices and a feeling that an unofficial 'cartel' has developed, and the latter is due to the larger operators offering advantages with network integration and compatible systems.

Create a great bus network for people to use < Play political games to isolate a select few companies whom don't lick backside

There are always some maverick operators who are unco-operative (aka 'don't lick backside') and they are likely to get isolated. Those select few companies have the answer in their own hands.

Two sides to every coin.

 

[markymark2000]

I stand by my "sweeping generalisation" because although there may be those which are somehow awash with money (eg "PTEs") the vast majority are not. This is clearly evidenced by some transport teams ceasing to exist as an entity and some councils withdrawing all local bus subsidy.

If you went to your nearest ATCO meeting with this view you would be laughed out of the room.

I think while it may be a bit of a generalisation, there are plenty of transport teams who mismanage their money and insist on introducing fantasy routes for politics or simply set up routes to fail so that they can try and withdraw them and don't have to worry about funding them in the future (common with S106 routes).

 

[Goldfish62]

That is not my experience at all (in Shire counties). The transport team may have got bigger, but usually because other non public transport functions related to Education, Special Needs and Concessionary travel have been transferred in. Team members with PT expertise have invariably gone down in numbers.

In my experience the former is usually due to high prices and a feeling that an unofficial 'cartel' has developed, and the latter is due to the larger operators offering advantages with network integration and compatible systems.

There are always some maverick operators who are unco-operative (aka 'don't lick backside') and they are likely to get isolated. Those select few companies have the answer in their own hands.

Two sides to every coin.

Agree with all that.

 

[RT4038]

I think while it may be a bit of a generalisation, there are plenty of transport teams who mismanage their money and insist on introducing fantasy routes for politics or simply set up routes to fail so that they can try and withdraw them and don't have to worry about funding them in the future (common with S106 routes).

This just shows to me that you do not understand the realities.

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?

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?

More than likely they don't much like aspects of the legal and financial framework they operate in either, but Transport teams are not working in some kind of bubble unrelated to the political and financial facts of life.

 

[Citistar]

I stand by my "sweeping generalisation" because although there may be those which are somehow awash with money (eg "PTEs") the vast majority are not. This is clearly evidenced by some transport teams ceasing to exist as an entity and some councils withdrawing all local bus subsidy.

If you went to your nearest ATCO meeting with this view you would be laughed out of the room.

We clearly have very different experiences. Neither of the organisations are PTEs.

 

[Goldfish62]

We clearly have very different experiences. Neither of the organisations are PTEs.

Yes, we clearly do. I shall relay your experiences to friends at local authorities. They will no doubt raise their eyebrows.

 

[domcoop7]

Lancashire has 7 staff on the Ticketing Team, 6 on school services, 10 on bus services, 25 on bus stations , and 1 on rail services.

Not huge, but not tiny either (presuming the bus station team is front-line staff). With officers and central back-office staff too, I'm sure they could create the high-level plan in-house if they wanted. As Man of Kent said above:-

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)

Are the DfT really going to be swayed by all the glossy photos of buses and meaningless buzz-words?

My job as a lawyer means I persuade people of things (whether that be judges, opposing lawyers or even my own clients) for a living. Keep it simple and stick to the point is the name of the game for me!

 

[Goldfish62]

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.