Agenda item

A report was considered which gave an update on the Bus Service Improvement Plan.

P Beijer and C Shepherd gave a presentation on the progress made to date on the Bus Service Improvement Plan which included:

• A reminder of the original findings of the Bus Review.
• A logic map indicating the context, inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts.
• The scale of the challenge.
• The vision for the South Yorkshire bus network.
• Key findings from evidence and engagement.
• Next steps.

Cllr Wyatt questioned whether any data was being captured from the Operators on the levels of cancelled services as this seemed to be a problem at the moment, particularly in the evening.

C Shepherd replied that the data was collected by SYPTE.  In terms of the BSIP the importance of reliability was recognised and also the need to extend the frequency of services in the core network especially in the evening.

Cllr Wyatt requested follow up on the data if available.  He also asked about the criteria for bus passes, there seemed to have been a tightening up of bus passes for those with learning disabilities and he had representations from people who were having difficulty renewing their passes.  At a time when patronage needed to be encouraged this was disappointing.

P Beijer commented that she would take the question away and respond to the Committee separately on the matter.

Cllr Smith commented that the report only provided one option and he was aware that the Transport Board had been given two options and had rejected setting long-term growth targets for bus patronage.

C Shepherd would compare the two reports and report back later in the meeting.

Cllr Ennis questioned whether any opposition had been encountered from the local bus operators in playing their part in the Enhanced Bus Partnerships.

C Shepherd replied that, so far, there had been no objections from the Operators to working in an Enhanced Partnership.  It had been a collaborative process and officers met fortnightly with the operators.  The plan had been developed in partnership with the operators.  As part of the process, there was a requirement from DfT that the Operators and MCA produced separate wish lists of activities.  When the wish lists were compared, although there were some differences, there was a lot of commonalities between the two which had helped in pulling together the plan.

Cllr Singleton queried how demand responsive transport (DRT) would work, especially in rural areas.

C Shepherd explained that there was no single model for DRT but it would be designed around the needs of the location.  In general terms DRT was a flexible service that would operate within a cordoned or defined area, would be booked through a platform, for example a mobile phone app, and would react to passenger demand.

Cllr Jones questioned where the role of Traffic Commissioners sat within the BSIP.

P Beijer replied that the Traffic Commissioners would continue to play a part in the ongoing operations of the bus service network.  They played a key role in the registration of bus services or the de-registrations of bus services and it was anticipated that this role would continue under Enhanced Partnerships.

The Chair commented that the Committee would like to understand how an Enhanced Partnership would differ from the previous voluntary partnerships and the Committee on previous occasions had expressed a desire that an Enhanced Partnership was seen as a stepping stone and not the end result as there was a collective belief that a franchise type agreement would give more certainty to the quality of bus services in future,

C Shepherd replied that there were legal differences between the voluntary and enhanced partnerships and franchising and felt the question would be best answered outside the meeting with support from the legal team.

S Davenport commented that an Enhanced Partnership, once agreed, was a legally binding arrangement between the Authority and the operators whereby both parties had to fulfil certain legal obligations.

The previous voluntary partnerships, which had a certain amount of success, were completely voluntary and were not legally binding.

All these partnerships had to pass competition test and there were certain things that could not be done, for example around fare structures, but there were more measures that could be taken under an enhanced partnership provided they passed the competition test.

With regard to fare structures, the Chair commented that one of the concerns raised in the Bus Review was the need to have a simplified fare structure between the operators. And questioned whether an Enhanced Partnership would be able to address this issue.

S Davenport confirmed that the issue could potentially be addressed under the Enhanced Partnership.

The Chair commented that reduced patronage was still a concern and also highlighted the problems around driver shortages.  There would also be a report to a future meeting on the success, or otherwise of the 25% reduction in fares over the summer.

D Smith informed the Committee that with regard to the question posed by Cllr Smith concerning decisions made by the Transport Board, it was not possible for an officer to comment on a decision made by another body.  It would be possible to have a discussion with the Chair of the Transport Board about the rationale for the decision and report back.

Cllr Smith accepted this but questioned why no long-term targets were set for patronage as suggested in option 2 of the report.  The general public would expect the BSIP to be a long-term plan and on reading the document it seemed there wasn’t one.

D Smith explained that officers could not speak for members who had made the decision but could explain the advice given by officers to the Transport Board.

C Shepherd explained that the options related to the mandatory targets for the BISP.  The BSIP focused on the shorter term and set targets for 2024/25 around journey times, reliability, passenger numbers and passenger satisfaction.   Longer term aspirations for these areas could be found in the Transport Strategy.

The advice given to the Transport Board was in regard to passenger numbers and how the figure was arrived at.  Declining trends pre-Covid were discussed and the position when the BSIP started next year was considered, including the 2-year recovery period and how challenging that would be.

D Smith informed the Committee that the short term goals were to ensure the BSIP was submitted on time by the end of October and take the report to the November meeting of the MCA to start the process of the Enhanced Partnership. These were all on target.

RESOLVED – That the Committee:

i)         Note the content of the Bus Service Improvement Plan and that it would be submitted to government by 29 October 2021.

ii)        Express the view that long-term goals should not be lost sight of and   that the BSIP should be a stepping-stone to consider much more          radical changes to bus services in the future.