Enhanced Engagement Lead Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
001 R3 22 October 2020
Transport for West Midlands
Enha nced Par tne rship Co nsulta tio n Re po rt Trans por t f or West Midla nds
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Enhanced Engagement Lead
Project No: CENTF018 enhanced engagement lead Document Title: Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report Document No.: 001 Revision: R3 Document Status:
Please select a legal entity...
NONE
www.jacobs.com
© Copyright 2019 Please select a legal entity from the Change Document Details option on the Jacobs ribbon. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.
Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party.
Document history and status
Revision Date Description Author Checked Reviewed Approved
001 13 Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report CW JD RN HB October 2020
001 R2 21 Oct Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report CW JD RN HB 2020
001 R3 22 Oct Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report CW JD RN HB 2020
001 i
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Contents 1. Executive Summary ...... iii 2. Introduction ...... 1 2.1 Why change? ...... 1 2.2 The EP Plan ...... 1 2.3 The EP Scheme ...... 2 2.4 Structure of the report ...... 3 3. The EP Plan and Scheme Consultation ...... 4 3.1 Summary of engagement ...... 4 3.2 Stakeholder events...... 4 3.3 Publicity ...... 4 3.4 Summary of consultation ...... 5 3.5 Equalities Impact Assessment ...... 5 3.6 What happens next ...... 6 4. Data analysis and interpretation ...... 7 4.1 Sample ...... 7 4.2 Analysis of the responses ...... 7 5. Responses to the online questionnaire ...... 8 5.1 Demographics ...... 8 5.2 Views on the Enhanced Partnership Plan ...... 16 5.3 Views on the Enhanced Partnership Scheme...... 20 6. Key themes and TfWM responses – online questionnaire ...... 27 6.1 EP Plan ...... 27 6.2 EP Scheme ...... 28 6.3 Enhancements to bus user experience ...... 29 7. Email responses ...... 30 8. Alternative suggestions...... 32 8.1 EP Plan ...... 32 8.2 EP Scheme ...... 33 8.3 Other suggested enhancements ...... 33
Appendix A. Additional Information
001 ii
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
1. Executive Summary
Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) is responsible for making transport “happen”. They are accountable for delivering improvements in transport across the region, to create a happier, healthier, better connected and more prosperous West Midlands.
Whilst significant progress in improving bus services is being achieved through the West Midlands Bus Alliance and the Advanced Quality Partnership Schemes already in place in central Birmingham, Wolverhampton city centre and Solihull town centre, an Enhanced Partnership (EP) is considered the best way to ensure delivery of the more ambitious plans to transform bus travel with Sprint whilst protecting the significant investment levels being made by the authorities and operators.
A consultation for the proposed Enhanced Partnership Plan and Scheme ran for 10 weeks from Monday 6th July to Sunday 13th September 2020.
A consultation booklet and online questionnaire were produced and available online throughout the consultation period. Stakeholders were also able to request hard paper copies of all consultation materials with a business reply envelope from TfWM, either by email or phone.
The consultation was publicised on buses, at bus stops and transport hubs, on digital bus screens, on local radio, and across TfWM’s and WMCA’s various social media channels. No consultation events were able to take place due to the national and local lockdown rules imposed to limit the spread of Covid-19.
A total of 347 responses were received to the online questionnaire, with a further 14 responses received by email.
Among the 347 online responses received via the online questionnaire: • 68% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the vision laid out in the EP Plan, 11% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the vision in the EP Plan, 17% neither agreed nor disagreed • 47% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the EP Scheme will raise standards along the three route corridors. 12% either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the EP Scheme would raise standards, 26% neither agreed nor disagreed. However, it was noted that 53% of respondents did not use the bus services in the EP Scheme area, so this could explain the higher percentage neither agreeing nor disagreeing.
The key themes to arise from the comments in the open questions (Q5, Q7 and Q8) were: • Opposition to the EP Plan and/or Scheme • Support for the EP Plan and/or Scheme • Economics and cost • General travel experience • Onboard experience • Comments on the consultation
The consultation responses have been analysed for any modifications to be made to the EP Plan and /or Scheme. It is recommended following the review of the responses that the EP Plan is unchanged following the consultation. The EP Scheme, however, is proposed to be modified to take account of the consultation responses
001 iii
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
2. Introduction
This public consultation report has been prepared by Jacobs UK Ltd on behalf of Transport for West Midlands to support the statutory consultation exercise carried out for the proposed Enhanced Partnership (EP), Plan and Scheme. Once agreed, the EP Plan and EP Scheme, subject to no modifications following the consultation exercise, will go to the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Transport Delivery Committee and relevant local authorities for approval to ‘make’ the EP (‘make’ being the legal term for finalising the content of both and then implementing the requirements of the scheme ‘on the ground’).
Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) is responsible for making transport “happen”. They are accountable for delivering improvements in transport across the region, to create a happier, healthier, better connected and more prosperous West Midlands.
Whilst significant progress in improving bus services is being achieved through the Bus Alliance and the Advanced Quality Partnership Schemes already in place in central Birmingham, Wolverhampton city centre and Solihull town centre, an Enhanced Partnership (EP) is considered the best way to ensure delivery of the more ambitious plans to transform bus travel with Sprint whilst protecting the significant investment levels being made by the authorities and operators.
An EP is a formal agreement between local transport authorities and local bus operators to work together to improve local bus services. It provides a legally binding commitment on all parties that will ensure delivery of our vision for better bus travel, setting the standard across the West Midlands.
In June 2019, WMCA gave approval for TfWM to proceed with the development of the EP Plan (or vision for improvement of bus services) and Scheme (the actions to be taken to deliver the vision). The EP Scheme focuses on the A34 (north) Walsall – Birmingham City centre, the A45 and B425 Lode Lane Corridors, from Birmingham Airport and Solihull – Birmingham City Centre.
An important element in the development of the EP is consultation. TfWM held a statutory consultation exercise for a period of ten weeks between 6th July and 13th September 2020, to understand the views of key stakeholders, and of the wider public, on the proposed EP Plan and Scheme.
2.1 Why change?
Buses are key to the provision of public transport in the region, with around 4 out of 5 public transport journeys taken by bus. Between April 2018 and the end of March 2019, 267 million journeys1 were made using bus services across the region – the equivalent of 71.5 million vehicle miles. The West Midlands has the largest commercially operated bus network in Western Europe. Given the importance of bus travel to the region’s society and economy, better bus services are vital to achieving inclusive growth in the West Midlands.
2.2 The EP Plan
The EP Plan sets out our overall vision to improve bus services in the region, building on the 9 objectives set out in TfWM’s Strategic Vision for Bus2: 1) UK leading low emission bus fleet with zero emission corridors serving the most affected areas of air quality. 2) Fully integrated bus network including local demand responsive and rapid transit services supporting rail, coach and Metro interchange as one network. 3) Simple, convenient and easy to use payment options including full capping providing a network which is value for money and affordable for customers.
1 DfT, Bus statistics 2018/19 2 https://www.tfwm.org.uk/media/38969/final-strategic-vision-for-bus.pdf
001 1
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
4) Fewer private car journeys by making bus the mode of choice and creating better access to jobs and long- term change. 5) Creating a safe, secure and accessible mode for all and tackling long held barriers and perceptions. 6) Accountable network performance management – tackling issues causing congestion and reliability problems. 7) World-leading customer information, utilising 5G and all available technologies and platforms. 8) All younger people under 25 supported by discounted travel, as well as addressing barriers for excluded groups. 9) Evolve a network to support the 24/7 thriving economy, connecting people to new and developing destinations and attractions.
2.3 The EP Scheme
The EP Scheme provides the framework and operational requirements to improve and deliver better bus travel in the scheme area. The first Scheme put forward will set minimum standards for the delivery of bus services along the A34 (north), A45 and B425 Lode Lane Corridors, forming part of our integrated transport network. More schemes may be brought forward under the EP Plan in the coming years, if it is necessary to formally agree bus improvements for an area.
This EP Scheme involves the delivery of facilities and measures to provide better bus travel, alongside improved bus service standards. These corridors will run from: ▪ A34 (north): Walsall to Birmingham City Centre (passing the 2022 Commonwealth Games venue of The Alexander Stadium at Perry Barr). ▪ A45 and B425 Lode Lane: Birmingham Airport and Solihull to Birmingham City Centre (passing the Games venues at the NEC).
TfWM has developed this Scheme as a priority to help facilitate the transport element of the 2022 Commonwealth Games. This will see significant investment both in vehicle standards (by operators) and infrastructure (by TfWM and local authorities), as well as complementary supporting measures (by TfWM and the local authorities).
Delivered by TfWM and the local highway authorities, the EP Scheme sets out 12km of new bus lane, 77 enhanced bus stops and improvements to traffic signal priority. The Scheme will set minimum standards for 52 existing bus services3 and the 320 buses that operate these routes, covering approximately 550 miles across the West Midlands. Any new routes introduced into the Scheme area will also need to meet these standards.
Due to begin in 2021, the EP Scheme aims to deliver the following improvements in collaboration with bus operators and local authorities: ▪ Investment in bus priority facilities and bus stop upgrades, providing pleasant and safer waiting environments and real-time information that will provide reassurance to passengers, on the next bus arrival. ▪ A safer and more enjoyable travel experience including minimum standards for buses to ensure a high quality. This will include CCTV, Wi-Fi, USB charging points, audio/visual next stop announcements, provision of induction hearing loops at every wheelchair space and priority seat, and integrated travel information onboard, enabling passengers to link journeys with other transport modes. ▪ Setting of minimum vehicle specifications for emission standards that will help improve air quality in the region and provide a roadmap towards a zero-emission fleet.
3 As at January 2020
001 2
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
▪ Contactless payment options available for every operator. Continued availability of operators ticketing products, as well as network-wide multi-operator tickets, enabling passengers to easily interchange between services within the scheme area without payment of a separate fare. ▪ Provision of better integrated bus services which will help support the shift towards use of more sustainable forms of transport, reducing the need for private car trips. ▪ Closer management, collaboration and response to highway disruption, maintenance and traffic enforcement. ▪ Improved sharing of bus performance data.
2.4 Structure of the report
The next section of the report summarises the engagement, consultation and publicity carried out to encourage stakeholders to participate. The remainder of the report analyses the responses to the questionnaire, including a breakdown of individual questions, to identify the main themes and issues raised by respondents. The final section concludes the report and summarises how TfWM intends to act on the issues raised by respondents going forwards.
001 3
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
3. The EP Plan and Scheme Consultation
In line with the procedures of both TfWM and the WMCA, we held a consultation to gather opinions of stakeholders, customers and local residents about the proposed EP Plan and Scheme, and to identify any concerns they had. This section summarises the engagement and consultation activities carried out, the means by which the consultation was publicised, the steps taken to ensure equal outcomes, and the next stage of the project.
3.1 Summary of engagement
In July 2019 WMCA wrote to 26 Bus Operators, to inform them of their intent to prepare the EP Plan and Scheme, as required under Section 138F of the Bus Services Act 2017. As part of this process, relevant Bus Operator companies were invited to participate by: ▪ joining one or both Reference Groups established by TfWM and chaired by Bus Users UK to oversee the development of the EP Plan and Scheme ▪ attending individual meeting(s) with TfWM to discuss the EP and the measures and facilities that might be included in Scheme ▪ making written submissions to TfWM with ideas and suggestions regarding the EP ▪ attending existing partnership meetings of the West Midlands Bus Alliance (i.e. Bus Operators Panel)
A Stakeholder Reference Group was formed to oversee the development and preparation of the EP, attended by the partners of TfWM, local authorities and local bus operators as well as other key stakeholders for passenger groups, the bus industry and business in the region. This included Bus Users UK (appointed as Chair), Transport Focus, Confederation of Passenger Transport, Local Enterprise Partnerships and Birmingham Airport. A representative from The Department for Transport, and neighbouring authorities were also invited to attend as observers. Awareness was also raised through the Bus Satisfaction Steering group and Bus Passenger Champions Scheme.
During the development and preparation of the EP Plan and Scheme, there was discussion and input with members as part of the WMCA Transport Delivery Committee. Bus operators were also formally engaged at stages in the EP development, when the EP Plan and Scheme has been prepared.
The local bus operators also had the formal opportunity to determine whether the EP proceeded to public consultation, with the EP Plan subject to one, and the EP Scheme subject to two separate operator objection periods. During these statutory processes, no objections were received from operators on either the EP Plan or Scheme. This allowed TfWM to commence with the next stage of the EP development – public consultation.
3.2 Stakeholder events
Due to the global pandemic caused by the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 (also known as Covid-19), no stakeholder events were able to take place in order to adhere to both social distancing rules, and the various national and local lockdowns imposed throughout the engagement and consultation periods.
3.3 Publicity
At the beginning of the public consultation period, an email was sent out to TfWM’s customer database. Included in this were individuals, organisations and councillors who had asked to be kept informed, so they could then relay this to their network of contacts on behalf of TfWM. The consultation was also advertised on buses, digital bus screens, and at bus stops and bus stations.
In addition, both TfWM and WMCA published posts through various social media channels throughout the consultation period advertising the consultation and encouraging stakeholders to take part and have their say.
001 4
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
The social media campaign had a total reach of 1.1 million and proved highly effective in engaging with the wider public, resulting in 11,749 views on the consultation website, generated through link clicks, shares and other interactions with TfWM’s social media posts.
Additionally, TfWM conducted a radio campaign to further raise awareness. This involved advertising on Free Radio Birmingham and sponsoring the Traffic & Travel segment on Greatest Hits Radio. This campaign was also highly effective in engaging with stakeholders. The Greatest Hits Radio campaign had a reach of over 370,000 listeners, generating 11,401,934 campaign impacts (one impact being equal to one person listening to one advertisement). This raised awareness of TfWM by engaging with listeners whilst they were already driving or travelling. Additionally, the Free Radio campaign generated a further 9,264,690 campaign impacts across its broadcast network (including the Birmingham, Coventry, and Black Country stations).
3.4 Summary of consultation
The consultation period lasted for a total of 10 weeks, running from 00.01am on Monday 6 July 2020 until 11.59pm on Sunday 13 September 2020. During this period, stakeholders were encouraged to complete and return the EP questionnaire, either online through the consultation website, by emailing [email protected], or by post.
All consultation materials, including the consultation booklet and questionnaire, were published online and available on the consultation website throughout the consultation period. Stakeholders wishing to respond by post were able to request a printed hard copy of the questionnaire and consultation booklet, together with a freepost Business Reply envelope, by contacting TfWM via phone or email.
The EP Partners, including operators, will consider how the proposed EP Plan and Scheme need to change to reflect suggestions made in this consultation. If changes are made to the EP Plan and/or Scheme, the EP will be subject to another operator period, for a minimum 28 days. Once agreed, the EP Plan and EP Scheme will go to the WMCA Transport Delivery Committee for approval. The EP Plan and EP Scheme will then be made by the WMCA and the local authorities. The figure below provides our current timeline for the making of the Enhanced Partnership.
Bus Operator, Preparation of an Operator Period Public 28 days Consultation LA & WMCA EP Approvals
EP Plan 20 6 July to 13 September June - December 2019 November 2020 - December 2019 - 24 2020 January 2021 January 2020
EP Scheme 28 February - 28 March 2020
3.5 Equalities Impact Assessment
An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) has been undertaken by TfWM to ensure that the informal engagement and formal consultation meet statutory requirements under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), part of the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act 2010 protects people who share a ‘protected characteristic’, along with other groups in society that may have differential needs.
The EqIA ensures that methods can be put in place to ensure all stakeholders are treated fairly and feel their diverse views and needs are considered, not only during engagement and formal consultation on the EP Plan and Scheme, but also throughout the Sprint project design. It should be noted that consultation on the Sprint
001 5
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
project design and infrastructure ran separately to the consultation on the EP Plan and Scheme. This involved significant consultation and engagement with local residents, business and community groups and transport professionals.
3.6 What happens next
The consultation responses have been analysed for any modifications to be made to the EP Plan and /or Scheme.
It is recommended following the review of the responses that the EP Plan is unchanged following the consultation. The EP Scheme, however, is proposed to be modified to take account of the consultation responses.
The modified EP Scheme will be put to the local bus operators for a further objection period, before it can be legally ‘made’. TfWM will issue a notice of intent to make the EP Plan and a modified EP Scheme, to make local bus operators aware of the modified version. This will be discussed with the EP Reference Group, prior to issuing the notice.
If the modified version passes the further operator objection period, , the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) and WMCA’s constituent local authorities can legally ‘make’ the Enhanced Partnership Plan and Scheme (‘make’ being the legal term for finalising the content of both and then implementing the requirements of the scheme ‘on the ground’).
001 6
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
4. Data analysis and interpretation
This section presents the results from the questionnaire responses. This includes a summary of who responded, and analysis of the main themes and issues raised in the responses.
4.1 Sample
The consultation was open to all interested parties, including bus users across both the West Midlands generally and the wider region, but was most heavily advertised on bus services along the A34 (north), A45 and B425 Lode Lane route corridors.
In total, 361 responses were received.
It should be noted that respondents to a consultation are a self-selecting sample made up of those who have chosen to respond, that is to say a non-scientific sample. Responses therefore reflect the views of only those who respond. This provides an invaluable insight into the concerns, themes and issues surrounding a proposal, although these views may be skewed towards a particular viewpoint and thus should not be considered a fully representative sample of the population.
Regardless of this, all responses and comments have been duly noted and considered.
4.2 Analysis of the responses
A total of 347 responses were received to the online questionnaire, with a further 14 respondents submitting direct email responses. The analysis in Chapter 5 reflects only the responses to the online questionnaire, with email and letter responses discussed in Chapter 6.
The online questionnaire comprised a mix of questions, including some closed ‘tick-box’ questions, and open questions allowing for longer, written answers.
In order to effectively analyse the written responses to the open questions, a codeframe was developed comprising wider themes and, within these, individual codes or issues. This allows for all concerns, opinions and suggestions to be captured.
001 7
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
5. Responses to the online questionnaire
The graphs and charts below summarise the responses to the closed questions in the questionnaire. In total, 347 online responses were received.
5.1 Demographics
Question 1: Respondent type
Of the 347 online responses received, 97% of the respondents completed the questionnaire as an individual, with 1% responding on behalf of an organisation, group or club, 1% selecting ‘Other’, and 1% left Q1 unanswered.
Respondent type
1% 1% As an individual 1% On behalf of an organisation, group or club Other
No answer 97%
Figure 1 shows responses to Question 1: Are you responding to this consultation as an individual, or on behalf of an organisation, group or club?
001 8
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Question 10: Purpose of bus journeys
This question allowed respondents to select multiple options, asking them to ‘Please tick as many as apply’. The results indicate that the most common purposes of the respondents’ bus journeys were: Shopping (occurring in 188 responses, 54%), Other leisure/recreation (174 responses, 50%), Work/business (150 responses, 43%), and Visiting friends/relatives (128 responses, 37%).
Purpose of bus journey(s) 200 188 174 180 160 150 140 128 120 100 72 80 60 40 20 11
Number of respondents of Number 20 0
Figure 2 – responses to Question 10: What are the main purposes of the journey(s) you make by bus?
Question 11: Respondent gender
Of the 347 online responses received, 56% of the respondents were male, 37% were female, 0.3% were transgender and 5% preferred not to say. The remaining 2% of respondents chose not to answer Q11.
Respondent gender 37%
5% 0.3% Male 2% Female Prefer not to say Transgender No answer
56%
Figure 3: responses to Question 11, showing a breakdown of respondents by gender.
001 9
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Question 12: Respondent age
Of the 347 online responses received, 37% of respondents were aged 60 or over (the largest group), 32% were aged 45-59, 11% of respondents were aged 35-44, 8% were aged 25-34, 5% were aged 16-24, and 1% were under 16. Of the remaining respondents, 4% selected ‘Prefer not to say’, and 2% left Q12 unanswered.
Respondent age
4% 16-24 1% 2% 37% 25-34 5% 35-44 8% 45-59 60 or over Prefer not to say Under 16 32% 11% No answer
Figure 4 shows responses to Question 12: Which of these age groups do you belong to?
Question 13: Respondent ethnic background
Of the 347 online responses received, 77% were from white British respondents, 4% of respondents selected ‘White Other’, whilst ‘Black or Black British’ and ‘Asian or Asian British’ were both selected by a further 2% of respondents. Of the remaining respondents, 1% selected ‘Mixed race’, 1% selected ‘Other’, 10% selected ‘Prefer not to say’ and 2% left Q13 unanswered.
Respondent ethnic background
4% Asian or Asian British 2% Black or Black British 2% 2% Mixed race 2% Other 10% 1% Prefer not to say 77% White British White Other No answer
Figure 5 shows response to Question 13: Which of the following best describes your ethnic background?
001 10
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Question 14: Disability
Of the 347 online responses received, 67% did not consider themselves to have a disability, 23% selected ‘Yes’, whilst 7% preferred not to say and 3% of respondents left Q14 unanswered.
Do you consider yourself to have a disability?
7% 23% 3% No Prefer not to say Yes No answer
67%
Figure 6 shows responses to Question 14: Do you consider yourself to have a disability?
001 11
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Frequency of bus use
Question 9 asked respondents: ‘How often do you use bus services within each of these areas or routes across the West Midlands?’, allowing respondents to indicate which routes they used and the frequency of their travel on these routes.
After analysing the responses to Question 9, all respondents were grouped into either ‘Users’ or ‘Infrequent or non-users’ of each route corridor, according to their bus use frequency. Respondents were designated as ‘User’ if they selected the ‘Daily’, ‘Weekly’ or ‘Monthly’ options, and ‘Infrequent or non-user’ if they selected ‘Less often’ or ‘Never’. Those who left Q9 unanswered were not included in either group.
Question 9(a): A34 (north)
The results below show that, of the 347 online responses received, 34% of respondents never use the A34 (north) for bus travel, 32% left Q9(a) unanswered, 5% of respondents use the A34 (north) daily, 8% use it weekly and 3% use it monthly. This indicates that 16% of respondents are A34 (north) users.
A34 (north) travel frequency
32% Daily 5% Weekly 8% Monthly Less often Never 34% 3% 18% No answer
Figure 7 shows responses to Question 9(a), reflecting bus use frequency on the A34 (north).
001 12
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Question 9(b): A45
The results below show that, of the 347 online responses received, 32% of respondents never use the A45 for bus travel, 32% left Q9(b) unanswered, 3% of respondents use the A45 daily, 6% use it weekly and 6% use it monthly. This indicates that 16% of respondents are A45 users.
A45 travel frequency 32%
Daily 3% Weekly 6% Monthly Less often 6% Never No answer 32% 21%
Figure 8 shows responses to Question 9(b), reflecting bus use frequency on the A45.
Question 9(c): Lode Lane
The results below show that, of the 347 online responses received, 35% of respondents never use the A45 for bus travel, 33% left Q9(c) unanswered, 5% of respondents use the Lode Lane corridor daily, 5% use it weekly and 5% use it monthly. This indicates that 15% of respondents are Lode Lane users.
Lode Lane travel frequency 33%
Daily 5% Weekly 5% Monthly Less often 5% Never 17% No answer 35%
Figure 9 shows responses to Question 9(c), reflecting bus use frequency on Lode Lane.
001 13
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Question 9(d): West Midlands generally
The results below show that, of the 347 online responses received, 6% of respondents never travel by bus across the West Midlands generally, 5% left Q9(d) unanswered, 41% of respondents use buses across the West Midlands daily, 24% use them weekly and 11% use them monthly. Of the remaining respondents,13% selected ‘Less often’ and 5% never travel by bus.
West Midlands generally travel frequency
13% 11% 5% 6% Daily Weekly Monthly Less often 24% Never No answer 41%
Figure 10 shows responses to Question 9(d), reflecting bus use frequency across the West Midlands generally.
001 14
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
To provide a clear picture of bus usage among those who responded, we have divided respondents into groups based on their responses to all parts of Q9. The groups, together with the numbers in each group, are shown on the diagram below.
Figure 11 shows the combined results of Q9, sections (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Bus travel behaviour Number of respondents Percentage of total
Use the A34 (north) corridor only 23 7%
Use the A45 corridor only 12 3%
Use the Lode Lane corridor only 17 5%
Use both the A34 (north) and A45 corridors 10 3%
Use both the A45 and Lode Lane corridors 15 4%
Use both the Lode Lane and A34 (north) 1 0.3% corridors
Use all three corridors and buses in the 18 5% West Mids. generally
Use buses outside all three corridors 185 53%
Use no bus 58 17%
No answer 8 2%
Grand Total 347 100%
001 15
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
As shown in the table and Venn diagrams above, 53% of respondents use bus services outside all three target corridors (i.e. across the West Midlands generally), and 17% of respondents use no bus.
28% of respondents use any combination of the target corridors, including a singular corridor, a pair, or all three corridors (and across the West Midlands generally). The remaining 2% did not answer Q9.
5.2 Views on the Enhanced Partnership Plan
Question 4: The vision in the EP Plan
Q4 asked respondents the extent to which they agreed with the vision set out by TfWM in the EP Plan. Q5 gave respondents the opportunity to provide comments about the EP Plan if they wished.
The results below show that, of the 347 online responses received, 68% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the vision laid out in the EP Plan, 11% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the vision in the EP Plan, 17% neither agreed nor disagreed, 3% selected ‘Don’t know’ and 1% left Q4 unanswered.
Agreement with the vision in the EP Plan
17% 5% Strongly agree 6% 3% 1% Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 38% 30% Don’t know No answer
Figure 12 shows responses to Question 4: To what extent do you agree with our vision to improve local bus travel across the West Midlands network, as laid out in the Enhanced Partnership Plan?
001 16
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Question 5: Comments on the EP Plan
This question was included to enable respondents to expand on their response to Q4.
Of the 347 online responses received, 53% of respondents answered Q5, that is to say 183 respondents provided comments. Of those who provided comments, 28 respondents (8%) commented that they had nothing further to add.
Analysis of the responses to Q5 with the codeframe allowed the issues and concerns raised by respondents to be grouped into the following themes: Theme Number of responses
Opposition to or negative comments on the Plan 35
Economics and cost 34
New routes suggestions or requests for wider coverage* 34
Support for the Plan 26
Travel experience 24
Suggestions for improving the Plan 17
Onboard experience 13
Comments on the consultation 12
Impact of Covid-19* 6
Comments about Sprint 5
Accessibility 4
Other 32
*These themes lie beyond the scope of the Enhanced Partnership Plan and will be discussed separately.
A table showing a full breakdown of results can be found in the Appendix.
Opposition to or negative comments on the Plan
This theme was identified in 35 responses to Q5. Among these, 7 respondents voiced general opposition to the EP Plan, with typical comments including: “No it will not work” EPC20-150
“Cant [sic] see the reason to have this partnership plan at all” EPC20-193
“Scrap it” EPC20-277
“You lot really are clueless about what is required.” EPC20-288
6 respondents expressed a preference for trams and/or trains, requesting either more of these, or investment and improvements to existing trams and trains. Typical comments included: “I [sic] tramway or light rail would be a better option” EPC20-087
001 17
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
“more trams” EPC20-089
“I would prefer any monies invested in a vast expansion of the tram network” EPC20-296
“[…] more and speedier investment is required in urban rail and light rail to help reduce the car congestion which delays bus traffic.” EPC20-339
4 respondents expressed the view that the EP Plan was too expensive, or would deliver poor value for money, with typical comments including: “An unwanted and expensive exercise.” EPC20-299
“Waste of money where only the contractors benefit” EPC20-254
4 respondents stated that the EP Plan was irrelevant to them, either because they do not use the target corridors, or because they believed it would not deliver improvements to the services they do use. Typical comments included: “Not relevant to services I use.” EPC20-046
“[…] I live approx 1.5 km away from a NXWM bus service, so public transport use has become nonviable for me” EPC20-154
“Personally where I live the scheme has no relevance.” EPC20-180
Some respondents voiced opposition to the choice of the routes themselves. Concerns included that the EP Plan ignored bus routes in need of improvement whilst targeting the same areas or routes which have been improved or upgraded regularly in the past. A typical comment was: “Focused on the usual corridors that you always enhance bus services on, and are already earmarked for SPRINT so don't require Enhanced Partnership Plans. “ EPC20-009
Economics and cost
This theme was identified in 34 responses. 12 respondents requested cheaper bus fares and/or passes, or made general comments that public transport should be cheaper than driving, in order to discourage private car use. Typical comments included: “Cheaper travel to get cars off roads” EPC20-085
“Make fares cheaper for all and give school children and elderly free passes.” EPC20-274
“Why don't you address the astonishing cost of bus travel?” EPC20-337
“Bus fares relative to the cost of driving need to be looked at as it's currently far cheaper to drive by private car even for one person.” EPC20-293
8 respondents stated the view that bus travel should be a solely public service run according to need, not profitability, with some respondents calling for buses to be renationalised. Typical comments included: “We need an integrated transport service in response to need, not profitablility [sic].” EPC20-006
“Just renationalise the buses” EPC20-112
“Nationalise the while network, remove the profit element and have a truely [sic] integrated bus network for the users and not a single bus company” EPC20-224
001 18
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
8 respondents made comments asking for a single or joint ticketing system, allowing bus passengers to make their entire journey using one ticket, rather than having to purchase multiple tickets for different travel operators. Typical comments included: “The more joined up the services are, including being able to have joined up payment options, the better for everyone” EPC20-062
“of [sic] all bus companies came together and accepted any ticket this would be much easier for the customer” EPC20-143
“Only way you can have a world class fully integrated transport system with less car journeys is to have a single 1 type ticket system rather than the collection of operator own specific tickets which need to become a thing of the past.” EPC20-231
Support for the Plan
This theme was identified in 26 responses, in which 19 respondents voiced general support for the Plan. Typical comments included: “It's a fantastic idea and as a bus user, I know this would stimulate many people who drive to switch to the bus.” EPC20-016
“Think it is a very good idea” EPC20-080
“It has lofty but achievable aims and, if achieved, will benefit the people who use the services.” EPC20-147
“Excellent plan” EPC20-298
Other respondents voiced conditional support for the Plan, often indicating that they would support the Plan only if it is adhered to. Typical comments included: “If it provides a genuine improvement in coordination and cooperation, removing anomalies and unnecessary duplication, then it should work.” EPC20-216
“Great but make sure it is delivered!” EPC20-227
“You can write a plan but if approved stick to it.” EPC20-263
Travel experience
This theme was identified in 24 responses. 10 of these respondents made comments about the reliability or punctuality of bus services (or lack of), with typical comments including: “Bus could be improved since timetable change utterly shocking service” EPC20-108
“Just need the buses to run on time” EPC20-124
“Improve reliability of buses never run to time table” EPC20-125
6 respondents made comments requesting faster and/or more frequent bus services, with typical comments including: “Anything that makes frequency improvement better and is more comprehensive over a wider area is a good plan” EPC20-336
“buses must be frequent on time clean and safe;“ EPC20-328
“More frequent buses ,” EPC20-032
001 19
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Other respondents made comments requesting that bus timetables be synchronised with the relevant smartphone app(s), allowing passengers to access information about bus delays, passenger numbers, or see when their next bus is due, in real time. Typical comments included: “Run to the timetables and sync timetables with phone apps so you know when a bus is due.” EPC20-085
Other respondents made comments requesting more electric or hydrogen-powered buses, with typical comments including: “I would like to see a commitment to green energy buses and trains.” EPC20-205
“I would like high green standards for buses. […] Electric buses or trams please.” EPC20-309
5.3 Views on the Enhanced Partnership Scheme
Question 6: Improving travel standards with the EP Scheme
Q6 asked respondents the extent to which they agreed that the EP Scheme would raise the standards of bus travel on the three corridors. Q7 allowed respondents to make further comments about the EP Scheme if they wished, and Q8 allowed respondents to make any further comments they had.
The results below show that, of the 347 online responses received, 47% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the EP Scheme will raise standards along the three route corridors. 12% either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the EP Scheme would raise standards, 26% neither agreed nor disagreed, 14% selected ‘Don’t know’, and 1% left Q6 unanswered.
Agreement that the EP Scheme will raise standards
4% 8% Strongly agree 14% 1% Agree Neither agree or disagree 26% Disagree 21% Strongly disagree Don’t know No answer
26%
Figure 13 shows responses to Question 6: To what extent do you agree that our proposed EP Scheme will raise the standard of bus travel along the A34 (north), A45 and Lode Lane Corridors?
Question 7: Comments on the EP Scheme
This question was included to enable respondents to expand on their response to Q6.
Of the 347 online responses received, 32% of respondents answered Q7, that is to say 112 respondents provided comments. Of those who provided comments, 29 respondents (8%) commented that they had nothing further to add.
001 20
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Analysis of the responses to Q7 with the codeframe allowed the issues and concerns raised by respondents to be grouped into the following themes: Theme Number of responses
Opposition to or negative comments on the Plan 39
Travel experience 13
New routes suggestions or requests for wider coverage* 10
Comments on the consultation 8
Comments about Sprint 7
Onboard experience 6
Support for the Plan 6
Economics and cost 4
Suggestions for improving the Plan 3
Impact of Covid-19* 2
Accessibility 0
Other 30
*These themes lie beyond the scope of the Enhanced Partnership Plan, and will be discussed separately.
A table showing a full breakdown of results can be found in the Appendix.
Opposition to or negative comments on the Plan
This theme was identified in 35 responses. 14 respondents stated that the EP Plan was irrelevant to them because they do not use the target corridors. Typical comments included: “Don't use these routes, so no idea.” EPC20-006
“Not relevant to my location.” EPC20-046
“Really no good to me, won’t help me to swap to public transport” EPC20-075
“It is too far away to be relevant to my transport needs. You might as well be telling me about a transport scheme happening in Manchester or London!” EPC20-285
Some of these comments went further, indicating that schemes like the Enhanced Partnership seem to target the same areas which see continual improvement, whilst neglecting other areas or routes. Typical comments included: “This is not local to me and so have no comment. How about those of us who live outside Birmingham and Solihull and need a share of this money spending on us?” EPC20-023
“this would have absolutely no impact on me or my journeys. Seems like yet another scheme for Birmingham thats [sic] not going to benefit anyone other than those who use this route already yet will impact cost wise on other customers.” EPC20-143
001 21
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
6 respondents commented that the Enhanced Partnership would not achieve its objective of reducing congestion, with some respondents believing that congestion would only worsen. Typical comments included: “It will not help local traffic and will effect [sic] residents.” EPC20-126
“I think it will cause more tail backs for car drivers” EPC20-307
5 respondents made comments stating that no improvements are required to the target corridors, with typical comments including: “Already have excellent service along A34. […] I bet my journey will take longer than 20mins when you lot have finished.” EPC20-093
“The A34 (North) is already well served by modern low - emission buses. Improvements are not required.” EPC20-299
Travel experience
This theme was identified in 13 responses. 10 of these respondents made comments about the reliability or regularity of bus services (or lack of), with typical comments including: “More regular service.” EPC20-028
“Buses need to be more regular along Lode Lane and Old Lode Lane” EPC20-124
Some respondents also requested upgrades to electric or hydrogen-powered buses, with typical comments including: “[…] alter the road system but continue to use or upgrade to electric powered buses.” EPC20-029
Some respondents made comments about the ease and convenience of bus travel, citing the lack of these as a barrier to bus travel. These responses raised the idea that if bus travel were to be made easier and more accessible across the region (including in rural areas), this would encourage more bus use. Typical comments included: “You need better cross region connections, not just fast links into the city centres” EPC20-224
“We just need to get people back onto public transport” EPC20-176
Comments on the consultation
This theme was identified in 8 responses in Q7 and a further 12 responses to Q5. They are reported together, here, as the issues mentioned are similar. The key issues arising from these responses included a lack of information within the consultation about the scheme, a lack of clarity or difficulty in understanding the consultation, and the importance of continuing to consult with bus users and keeping the public fully informed before implementing any changes. Typical comments included: “No real evidence provided. What happens when these are being implemented? Where is the information regarding alternative routes for those that have to commute on public transport while these routes are being built?” EPC20-113
“well for a start only pages 63,64,65 and 66 in your online document are of any practical use ,all the rest is waffle really who is going to read all those pages” EPC20-210
“Ensure you talk to bus users when planning any changes and not just implement plans you think may work” EPC20-085
“You just need to make sure the general public are kept fully informed (but without using 'corporate' language)” EPC20-216
001 22
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Other comments highlighted that the size of the maps and fonts was not accessible for all respondents. Other respondents were of the opinion that the statistics contained in the consultation documents would not be reflected when the Plan is implemented. Typical comments included: “I would have liked to be able to see the map in a larger format and more details” EPC20-251
“Far too many buzzwords and overly positive statistics. A highly suspicious document, given previous experiences with such documents and such plans. More goes into the planning than to the execution.” EPC20-217
Question 8: Enhancements to bus user experience
This question was included to enable respondents to add any further comments or concerns they had, inviting respondents to set out ideas or suggestions as to how the experiences of bus users could be enhanced.
Of the 347 online responses received, 54% of respondents answered Q8, that is to say 187 respondents provided comments. Of those who provided comments, 14 respondents (4%) commented that they had nothing further to add. Analysis of the responses to Q8 with the codeframe allowed the issues and concerns raised by respondents to be grouped into the following themes: Theme Number of responses
Travel experience 70
Onboard experience 55
Economics and cost 30
New routes suggestions or requests for wider coverage* 23
Impact of Covid-19* 10
Suggestions for improving the Plan 9
Accessibility 9
Opposition or negative comments on the Plan 7
Comments on the consultation 2
Support for the Plan 1
Comments about Sprint 0
Other 20
*This lies beyond the scope of the Enhanced Partnership Plan, and will be discussed separately.
A table showing a full breakdown of results can be found in the Appendix.
Travel experience
This theme was identified in 70 responses. 13 of these respondents made comments about the reliability of bus services (or lack of), usually stressing the importance that buses run and keep to timetable. Typical comments included: “Buses running on time (not late, early or never)” EPC20-038
001 23
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
“If bus drivers will stick to timetable would be great.” EPC20-195
“More predictable arrival times would be useful.” EPC20-346
8 respondents made comments requesting more frequent bus services as a means of encouraging greater bus use and reducing crowding on buses, with typical comments including: “More frequent services in some areas. […] Do not miss out certain services as sometimes occurs on my local bus.” EPC20-055
“Efficient safe services with frequent buses are the way forward and reduce over crowding” EPC20-085
“More frequent buses especially late evening.” EPC20-232
“More frequent buses in mere green maybe the 78 diamond run every half a hour” EPC20-166
8 respondents made comments requesting real-time information at bus stops, to inform passengers about waiting times and delays to services. Typical comments included: “Real time information at every stop.” EPC20-157
“more up to date information at bus stops when buses are not running or delayed ,also where different bus services interlink don't leave at the same time” EPC20-307
“More real time at bus stops on single bus routes e.g. No. 27 as these routes are more affected by a bus being late or not available” EPC20-298
Similarly, 7 respondents called for other improvements to bus stops and shelters. Some of these responses were more generalised, whilst others highlighted specific areas for improvement, such as queuing systems at bus stops, cleanliness, or concerns for safety when awaiting buses at night. Typical comments included: “improve bus stops, and security at bus stops” EPC20-042
“Visible, active steps to eliminate anti-social behaviour on buses and at stops and interchanges. Better design, cleaning and maintenance of stops and their immediate environs.” EPC20-064
“,clean bus shelters, good lighting at night , some need cleaning with power washers not bucket and a broom, they stink as some are used as toilets, the roofs are a disgrace on the outsides, not been cleaned for years” EPC20-210
“I would like to see more improvements to Bus Stops. They should be made to feel safer. Maybe with the ‘help call button’ that is available on station platforms. It’s not good making improvements if people don’t feel safe waiting for a bus, especially late at night. There also needs to be better queuing systems at bus stops as many times people just push forwards & pile on. For users with puschairs [sic] (& I’m sure those with mobility issues too) this can be incredibly frustrating, especially when you are then told the bus is full & you need to wait for the next one despite having been amongst the first there.“ EPC20-313
6 respondents made comments calling for bus travel to be made equally accessible across all regions and routes, often voicing dissatisfaction with services in rural areas. Typical comments included: “Have all the buses capable of operating to the same standards [to avoid having] two companies running the same service (50) competing with each other and having 30 buses an hour on the route when other areas of the city barely get a bus an hour.” EPC20-009
“Yes , one company running all services. Then we might have some sort of proper service in semi rural areas. Public transport in Knowle is appallingly. [sic]” EPC20-075
001 24
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
“This project should ensure that all buses are accessible and affordable to all communities served.” EPC20-348
Onboard experience
This theme was identified in 55 responses. 13 of these respondents voiced safety concerns, calling for increased measures to make buses and bus travel safer. Typical comments included: “More confidence in safety especially at night” EPC20-048
“Feeling safe & secure when using buses, both whilst waiting for a bus to arrive & when on the bus is vital to encouraging more people to use the service” EPC20-260
“Safety should help passengers especially the elderly feel threatened” EPC20-301
Similarly, 8 respondents made comments requested that inspectors and/or conductors be reinstated on buses. For many respondents this was linked to the idea of increasing personal safety and security when using the bus. Typical comments included: “Bring back conductors! It is too much to expect a driver to concentrate on busy road conditions and look after the welfare of passengers, especially on double deckers. A lot of would-be bus passengers won't use them because they don't feel safe.” EPC20-006
“Bring back conductors to help combat anti social behaviour” EPC20-087
Some respondents developed this idea further, citing antisocial or aggressive behaviour from passengers as a deterrent to bus travel. Many of these respondents called for an officer, guard, or some other physical security presence on buses to help drivers to control poor passenger behaviour. Examples given of such behaviour included eating, drunkenness, shouting, playing loud music and cannabis use. Typical comments included: “I do not consider public transport safe, consider an officer/guard on each bus, help unemployment and give people the confidence to travel on public transport” EPC20-136
“I would like to see a physical presence of security on buses. As personal safety is the main reason I would not currently use buses as transport.” EPC20-159
“More cleaning, stronger support to drivers when faced with non payers, weed smokers etc“ EPC20-041
“Bus travel is not safe these days. Increased muggings and anti social behaviour. What measures are you introducing to combat this? Drivers understandably do not want to get involved. If they can’t legally that needs to be made clear.” EPC20-113
“No loud music, swearing or shouting.” EPC20-011
“Stopping buses when there is anti social behaviour on buses and drivers asking for the poilce. [sic] Too often we can be stuck on buses for an hour and a half with thugs swearing, smoking, playing loud music and we just have to suffer it throughout the whole journey” EPC20-106
“How will you stop the drunks and aggressive people getting on your new bus service so you can encourage me to get on?” EPC20-123
Many respondents made other suggestions for improving their overall onboard experience. These included improving bus cleanliness and improving air conditioning and ventilation. Other respondents continued with the theme of passenger behaviour, or even driver behaviour, with calls for a ban on smoking, eating and drinking on buses, measures to limit the number of passengers who have to stand, and comments made about bus drivers’ driving style. Typical comments included:
001 25
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
“Buses to be clean (some are a disgrace), on time and not smell of drugs would be great” EPC20-143
“Cleaner buses, conductors ensuring people have feet off seats, no smoking etc.” EPC20-274
“Cleaner buses. Friendly bus drivers make a big difference. More time for the bus drivers to drive the route, so they can go slow,y [sic] and steadily and wait for people to sit down before starting off.” EPC20-309
“Clean them more regularly. Improve ventilation & air con in summer. Stop people eating on the bus. […] Do not have standing as this leads to crowded stuffy conditions.” EPC20-275
“Make buss [sic] a no eating and no drinking experience!” EPC20-054
“Stop allowing more people on the bus when it is already over full. Limit standing. It’s often impossible to get off the bus with so many standing. There are also many drivers who think they are at Brands Hatch - too fast approaching bus stops then suddenly braking and generally throwing people around.” EPC20-330
Economics and cost
This theme was identified in 30 responses. The most frequently occurring issues from this theme in Q8 were related to ticketing, with 13 respondents requesting cheaper fares and passes, 10 respondents requesting a single, joint-ticket system with tickets valid for all bus operators, and 4 respondents requesting the integration of bus, tram and rail tickets. Typical comments included: “Can only afford to use bus once a fortnight. Bus passes for 1950s women ROBBED of SIX YEARS OF STATE PENSION.” EPC20-027
“Cheaper bus fares. London is cheaper than wes [sic] midlands” EPC20-098
“I would like to see fully flexible ticketing, integrated ticketing and a 24-hour service” EPC20-101
“Scrapping the operator specific tickets and having a just one ticket type to be used anywhere on the networks” EPC20-231
“As we live in a 24/7 culture we need a more frequent service at night linked to the tram system” EPC20-022
“More info re fare "capping". The opportunity to more easily purchase combined bus / train / tram tickets. For example an easy to use daysaver style ticket that combines all three travel options. “ EPC20-315
001 26
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
6. Key themes and TfWM responses – online questionnaire TfWM has reviewed all comments received during the consultation and, where possible and appropriate, incorporate these into the final EP Plan and Scheme.
Following the analysis of the online responses received, a number of key themes emerged across the open questions. TfWM has considered these concerns and has provided a response to each.
6.1 EP Plan Suggestion TfWM response
Opposition or negative comments on the plan The EP Plan is the high-level strategic document that A preference for trams/trains. sets the bus network in the EP area into context, focusing on bus. Concern over value for money noting that the EP Plan is too expensive. The EP Plan cannot be costed, as the commitments made by TfWM and the local authority are contained The EP Plan ignored bus routes in need of in the EP Scheme that has been assessed for its improvement. financial viability. Bus services will continue to be reviewed by TfWM through their review of services with local bus operators.
Economics and cost Ticketing schemes for nBus and nNetwork are specified in the EP Scheme. These ensure multi- A call for cheaper bus fares and/or passes, or operator and multi-modal tickets are available at the that public transport should be cheaper than lowest cost for travel in the scheme area. driving. The development of an Outline Business Case to Bus travel should be a solely public service run assess powers (including franchising) within the Bus according to need rather than profitability, with Services Act 2017 to help improve bus services in the some respondents calling for buses to be West Midlands was approved by the WMCA Board on renationalised. 28th June 2019. This consultation on an EP is separate to that Outline Business Case assessment. A single or joint ticketing system, allowing passengers to make their entire journey without the need to purchase multiple tickets for
different travel operators.
The EP Scheme includes a combination of existing Travel experience designated bus lanes, newly-created bus lanes and also priority through areas of congestion that will The reliability and punctuality of bus services, or contribute to significant bus journey time reliability. lack of. Route requirements could be included; however, this A faster and/or more frequent bus services. would not deliver more frequent bus services, so has not been proposed in this EP Scheme. Bus timetables be synchronised with the relevant smartphone app(s) to provide Many of the local bus operators already have apps information about delays and disruption in real that display real time location for buses, including time. delays and disruption.
001 27
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
6.2 EP Scheme Suggestion TfWM response
The EP Plan provides the backdrop for specific EP Opposition or negative comments on the plan Schemes that will detail actions and developments The EP Scheme targets the same areas and to be taken jointly by partners to deliver a marked routes which see continual improvements, improvement in bus services. The first EP Scheme to neglecting others. be introduced will support the implementation of Sprint, including improved highway infrastructure for The EP would not achieve its objective of buses in the Scheme area. Future schemes may be reducing congestion, but instead would only suggested and promoted by TfWM, local authorities worsen congestion. or bus operators that could focus on other areas and No improvements are required to the target routes. corridors. Congestion is an issue for us all and we need to take responsibility for the demands on the transport system. Continuing to build capacity into the bus network to improve the performance of bus travel and investing in integrated ticketing options to make it easier and cheaper to travel are key components to tackle congestion in the region and encourage people to switch from using their car.
Our region is growing, and we want the growth to be inclusive and sustainable so that everyone can benefit from the opportunities. Investment in our passenger transport network will help to provide the capacity and quality of service needed to support the growth ambitions.
Travel experience The EP Scheme includes a combination of existing designated bus lanes, newly-created bus lanes and Reliability or regularity of bus services, or lack also priority through areas of congestion that will of. contribute to significant bus journey time reliability. Upgrades to either electric or hydrogen- The EP Scheme includes requirements and powered buses. timeframes for the transition to zero emission buses. If bus travel were to be made easier and more Bus services will continue to be reviewed by TfWM equally accessible across the region, including through their review of services with local bus in rural areas, this would encourage more bus operators. use.
Comments on the consultation The consultation website had 11,749 views, with a social media reach of 1.1 million and radio impact of The consultation was difficult to understand, or over 20 million people. that it lacked sufficient detail and/or clarity. A separate website for the Enhanced Partnership will The importance of continuing to consult with continue to provide updates on the development of bus users before implementing changes, and the EP. the importance of keeping the public fully https://www.tfwm.org.uk/operations/enhanced- informed throughout the process. partnership/ The size of the maps and/or text fonts was not Whilst engagement to provide updates on the Sprint accessible for all respondents. project design and infrastructure runs separately to the EP Plan and Scheme.
001 28
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
The statistics contained in the consultation Consultee’s were able to request documentation in documents would not be reflected when the different formats to ensure accessibility for all. plan is implemented.
6.3 Enhancements to bus user experience Suggestion TfWM response
Travel experience The EP Scheme includes a combination of existing designated bus lanes, newly-created bus lanes and Ensure buses run to timetable. also priority through areas of congestion that will Provide real-time information at bus stops to contribute to significant bus journey time reliability. inform passengers of waiting times or delays. The EP Scheme includes operator requirements for Various improvements to bus stops and CCTV on-vehicle to improve safety and security, as shelters, including better cleanliness, queuing well as enhanced bus stops with CCTV for security systems, and increased security when waiting and real time information displays. for buses at night. Bus services will continue to be reviewed by TfWM Dissatisfaction with services in rural areas. through their review of services with local bus operators.
Onboard experience The EP Scheme includes operator requirements for CCTV on-vehicle to improve safety and security, as Concerns about safety during bus travel. well as enhanced bus stops with CCTV for security. Inspectors and/or conductors be reinstated on buses. The legislation does not allow for inspectors and/or conductors to be specified as a requirement for Improvements to bus cleanliness and/or operators. ventilation. Antisocial or aggressive behaviour from other passengers. Some went further to request an officer or security guard on buses to help bus drivers to combat this.
Economics and cost Ticketing schemes for nBus and nNetwork are The integration of bus, tram and rail tickets. specified in the EP Scheme. These ensure multi- operator and multi-modal tickets are available at the lowest cost for travel in the scheme area.
001 29
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
7. Email responses
In addition to the 347 online responses submitted on the online questionnaire, a total of 14 emails were received in response to the consultation. Of these enquiries, 7 were closed during the consultation, as these were mostly short comments or questions. The majority of these comprised requests for hard paper copies of the consultation materials, booklet and questionnaire.
TfWM has duly noted all the concerns and suggestions received through the separate email responses. Suggestion from email response TfWM Response
Three respondents emailed TfWM expressing support for The EP Scheme includes operator requirements the Enhanced Partnership. One of whom made additional for CCTV on-vehicle to improve safety and suggestions, including maintaining bus cleanliness, security, as well as enhanced bus stops with CCTV increased security on buses to manage passenger for security and real time information displays. misbehaviour, lower bus fares for those aged 60 and Ticketing schemes for nBus and nNetwork are over, improvements to electronic displays at bus stops specified in the EP Scheme. and contactless payment systems, more frequent bus services, and increased driver training to enable drivers The legislation does not allow driver training to be to be more helpful to passengers. specified as a requirement for operators.
Route requirements could be included; however, this would not deliver more frequent bus services, so has not been proposed in this EP Scheme.
One respondent emailed to provide comment on the Modifications are proposed to the EP Scheme to vehicle parameters, ticketing arrangements and remove references to voluntary partnerships. governance of the EP development. Ticketing schemes for nBus and nNetwork are specified in the EP Scheme.
The partners and stakeholders forming the EP Reference Group, independently chaired by Bus Users UK, have contributed to the development of the EP proposals prior to public consultation. It has ensured discussions in the EP development have been open, honest and productive.
One respondent requested that the overall passenger The legislation does not allow driver training to be experience be considered as part of the improvements. specified as a requirement for operators. This respondent also suggested increased driver training to enable them to better assess whether a passenger should be permitted to board the bus if they appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Two respondents emailed to express dissatisfaction with The EP Scheme does not cover this area. bus services to and from Cannon Park shopping centre in Coventry, namely highlighting the issue of having to Bus services will continue to be reviewed by TfWM catch two separate buses in order to travel there. through their review of services with local bus operators.
001 30
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Another respondent emailed to voice comments from Modifications are proposed to the EP Scheme to TfWM’s cycling and walking team. The main theme here strengthen the role of bus with walking and was disappointment that the consultation does not cycling. mention active travel, but is instead focused on buses and vehicles, rather than people. This respondent offered guidance for the design of schemes in which bus and active travel enhance one another, such as bike- sharing and ‘floating’ bus stops.
Another respondent emailed offering their opinion of Ticketing schemes for nBus and nNetwork are approaches taken by other combined authorities, namely specified in the EP Scheme; as well as ensuring all Transport for London (TfL) and Transport for Greater bus operators offer contactless ticketing; and Manchester. The respondent provided a comprehensive improved passenger information including on account of what they perceive to be both positive and disruptions. negative aspects of public transport in both London and Manchester and suggested TfWM learn from these The development of an Outline Business Case to approaches. The main suggestions highlighted include assess powers (including franchising) within the provision of a convenient, cashless payment system with Bus Services Act 2017 to help improve bus ‘smartcards’, active social media to provide real-time services in the West Midlands was approved by the information about delays and disruption to services, and WMCA Board on 28th June 2019. This the use of intuitive branding utilising street signs, consultation on an EP is separate to that Outline integrated maps and journey planners. The respondent Business Case assessment. also states the importance of lowering emissions, suggesting that the bus network links to other measures such as car share, ring and ride, and Hong Kong-style taxi buses. The respondent a raised concern about franchising, namely whether it is responsible to fully entrust the private sector to deliver services.
001 31
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
8. Alternative suggestions Many respondents also offered ideas to improve the Plan. This section responds directly to those which fall within the remit of TfWM as part of the Enhanced Partnership, and sets out steps to be taken to enact these where possible.
The suggestions raised covered a variety of themes, including real-time information, active travel provisions, bus routes, bus lanes, ticketing and costs, and franchising.
8.1 EP Plan Suggestion TfWM response
Take a good look at Blackpools bus and tram Many of the local bus operators already have apps scheme, when I visit I pay by app and the app tells that allow on-vehicle payment via mobile and me exactly where the buses and trams are. EPC20- display real time location for buses. 253
Why is there precious little about cycling? EPC20- Modifications are proposed to the EP Scheme to 337 strengthen the role of bus with walking and cycling.
I didn’t see any provisions for cyclists EPC20-344
Why don't you address the astonishing cost of bus Ticketing schemes for nBus and nNetwork are travel? EPC20-337 specified in the EP Scheme.
Through the West Midlands Bus Alliance we have A range of bus operators need to be working within worked collaboratively with bus operators, local this partnership plan and corridor. Frequencies must authorities and other partners to invest in be maintained even if Sprint is using the same space. improvements to the West Midlands bus network, Buses must be given their own lane which is shared improving fares, passenger experience, vehicle with Sprint. EPC20-018 emissions and network performance. The development of the EP has involved bus operators working together to improve bus travel in the region.
The concept of a fully integrated bus network has TfWM’s move towards of an integrated transport been talked about for some time now with little system is epitomised through the new West Midlands obvious progress aside from a handful of routes in Transport brand, which brings a single identity to the the Sandwell area. The idea of a single, unified West public transport system in the West Midlands, with Midlands Bus identity should be expanded. EPC20- each mode having its own distinctive livery. 024
I would like to see a franchising approach taken The development of an Outline Business Case to instead. Other combined authorities have progressed assess powers (including franchising) within the Bus plans for this and West Midlands should make the Services Act 2017 to help improve bus services in the use of powers available by taking control of fares, West Midlands was approved by the WMCA Board on routes etc entirely. EPC20-072 28th June 2019. This consultation on an EP is separate to that Outline Business Case assessment.
001 32
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
8.2 EP Scheme Suggestion TfWM response
The EP Plan sets out the need to protect existing bus We need more bus lanes and clean air zones in town lanes and provide more. This is demonstrated centres across the WM EPC20-112 through the EP Scheme with additional bus lanes on the A34 (north), A45 and B425 corridors, whilst across the West Midlands there is a £45m bus priority programme being delivered.
8.3 Other suggested enhancements Suggestion TfWM response
Provide a service that is a reasonable comparison to The EP Scheme includes a combination of existing the car. Journey times are diabolical EPC20-332 designated bus lanes, newly-created bus lanes and also priority through areas of congestion that will contribute to significant bus journey time reliability.
Routes tend to be focussed on city centre. More The EP Plan provides the backdrop for specific EP non-radial routes would be good, to avoid the need Schemes that will detail actions and developments to go in and then out again. This would cut journey to be taken jointly by partners to deliver a marked times and close the gap to efficiency of car usage. improvement in bus services. The first EP Scheme to EPC20-339 be introduced will support the implementation of Sprint, including improved highway infrastructure for buses in the Scheme area. Future schemes may be suggested and promoted by TfWM, local authorities or bus operators that could focus on other areas and routes.
Bus services will continue to be reviewed by TfWM through their review of services with local bus operators.
001 33
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Appendix A. Additional information
A.1 Online questionnaire: full breakdown of results
Table (a): breakdown of codes used, and themes raised, in response to Q5. Comment theme Number of responses General support 19 Support new/longer bus lanes 1 Plan will reduce/eliminate emissions (by encouraging bus use instead of driving) 2 Support plan but only if TfWM stick to it 4 General opposition 7 Services will be reduced rather than enhanced / current regular stopping services 1 will be cut Waste of money/too expensive/poor value for money 4 Will disrupt/lengthen journey times Ignores (a lot of) routes 3 Corridors are already earmarked for Sprint; no need for EP as well 1 Targets the same routes/areas which see continual improvement while neglecting 3 others Not relevant to services I use / I don't use these routes 4 More/improved trams/trains/light rail would be preferred 6 No improvement required 2 Proposed plans would bring little/no improvement / don't solve current issues with 2 buses Poor connections to main route; pointless improving main route if people can't 3 access it easily EP doesn’t address congestion / will cause/worsen congestion / improved bus 2 service will be pointless if roads still congested Environmental impact of the scheme (e.g. removing trees) does not outweigh the 1 benefits Concerns about disruption whilst routes being constructed Solihull likely to become increasingly car-orientated / shouldn't be focusing on 1 buses Opposition to anything which discourages/reduces capacity for private car usage 1 Support for Sprint 1 Opposition to Sprint (incl. Sprint is a waste of money / won't bring benefits) 3 Request for more information about Sprint 1 More reliable service / run to timetable 10 Faster / more frequent buses 6 Make bus travel easier / encourage more bus use 2 Make bus travel equally accessible across all regions / areas (incl. better service in 2 rural areas) More bus lanes 1 More park and ride facilities More local services 1 Real-time information at all bus stops Sync timetables with phone app to show when next bus is due in real time / how 2 busy bus is Prioritise early-morning/rush hour bus commuters/key workers 1 Consider the effects of big events (e.g. Christmas markets/Commonwealth Games) 1 which lengthen bus journeys for those trying to get home from work
001 34
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Label bus routes with colour-coding 1 Upgrade to electric / hydrogen-powered buses 3 Remove bus lanes and allow cars to flow more freely (to reduce congestion) Wait until passengers are seated before moving off Make sure alighting passengers do so before others board CCTV is inadequate / doesn’t cover all areas of the bus Penalties for bus operators who refuse to accept valid tickets Don’t stop for longer than necessary if the bus is running ahead of time Run all bus services 24/7 / more frequent services during the night Dual-door buses to speed up entry and exit Improvements to bus stops: better cleaning / queuing systems / should be made safer at night Create simple diagrammatic map (based on TfL map or TfWM train/metro map) 1 showing all bus routes to encourage confidence in using buses across West Midlands Safer buses / safety concerns 5 More professional/friendlier staff 1 More inspectors / bring back conductors 4 More double-deckers / opposition to articulated/bendy buses (so fewer people have to stand) Cleaner buses / improve cleanliness 4 Unpleasant experience on the 51 service due to drunk passengers 1 Improve air conditioning / better ventilation / stop windows steaming up in winter 1 Ban eating and drinking on buses 1 Complaints about passenger behaviour (incl. eating, playing music, shouting, 1 smoking, cannabis use) Audio announcements on all vehicles and routes Officer / guard onboard to help drivers with antisocial behaviour / aggressive passengers (incl. drivers can’t (be expected to) drive as well as manage passenger behaviour) Penalties / police fines for those who smoke / don’t wear masks / are aggressive Remove seats facing each other to prevent people putting feet on opposite seats Dedicated buses for schoolchildren in term time to allow for social distancing / prevent them from crowding in buses / blocking gangways Ensure that children do not sit down if there are adults standing Improve bus WiFi More plugs for charging phones Limit standing / don’t allow more passengers onboard when bus is already full Some bus drivers drive too fast / brake too suddenly/harshly Printed / paper tickets for customers on all routes / regardless of payment method More individual seats to allow easier distancing / remove need to sit next to someone Extend Lode Lane corridor (from Chelmsley Wood to Shirley via Solihull) 1 Bring back 288 service (from Broadway Norton / via Greyhound Lane) 1 Better connections to/from Wolverhampton / include Wolverhampton in plans 2 Better connections to/from Hodge Hill / no buses in Hodge Hill 1 Direct bus to/from Merry Hill 3 Service between Coleshill and Birmingham/Coventry 1 Service between Dudley and Great Bridge 1 More services/routes to/from Castlevale 1 More services/routes to/from Shard End More services/routes to/from Tipton Reinstate direct bus service to Blackheath Town Centre 1
001 35
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Extend bus lane on A45 eastbound / improve transport issues on A45 1 Keep / increase frequency of / extend X1 service to improve direct access to Birmingham Airport / Birmingham International Station Support for improving the 51 / X51 route 3 Reinstate 38 route between Walsall and Wednesbury – lifeline for elderly/disabled 2 Reinstate 27 route between Kings Heath and West Heath Reinstate 29 service for Weoley Castle / improve services in Weoley Castle 1 Reinstate the 54/54A service between Wolverhampton to Stafford Introduce a service between Walsall and Sutton Coldfield / integrate the 77 and 78 services More stops on the 11 service (particularly in Stirchley and Cotteridge) Extend network to reduce number of changes / transport modes required to reach 3 destination More / better bus connections / routes to areas bordering / surrounding West 5 Midlands Extend bus pass coverage / validity outside West Midlands 2 Widen the area to include Lichfield at a later stage 1 Opposition /concerns about demolition of Perry Barr flyover Black Country / South Black Country needs improving / is always left behind / 1 ignored / forgotten Reinstate bus routes where elderly make up high proportion of residents / users Create / protect routes whose users are reliant on bus travel 1 Stagecoach buses should use Pool Meadow bus station in Coventry City Centre Look at services from Fox Hollies to Birmingham City Centre 1 More / better services to/from Rowley Regis Do not cancel direct service from Walsgrave Hospital to Eastern Green Rd Improve the 3 service between Cannock and Walsall 1 Improve the 66 service between Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield Improve the 6 service 1 Improve the route between Leamington Spa and Warwick / University of Warwick 1 Cheaper fares and passes / ensure public transport cheaper than driving / 12 discourage driving Make bus travel cheaper for all, especially elderly (not just students/unemployed) 2 Free bus passes for elderly / under-18s 1 Renationalise buses / should be public service run according to need, not 8 profitability (incl. comments about certain provider(s) having a monopoly on bus travel) Single / joint / 1-ticket system (rather than multiple tickets for different operators) 8 Integrate bus, tram and rail tickets 1 Introduce daily/weekly/monthly bus tickets/passes 2 Enable contactless payments / integrate contactless across multiple bus providers 1 Ensure scheme is cost-effective 1 NX buses have a monopoly over bus travel Free bus passes for 1950s / WASPI women who lost state pension 1 Introduce ‘night out’ pass valid from early evening until early hours the next day 1 Companion fares for those who need to accompany disabled bus users Cheaper fares for short journeys 1 Set up website (like TfL with Oyster) showing statement / record of trips to provide 1 receipts to claim expenses Support for contactless but also important that cash is still accepted as payment Improve accessibility for elderly passengers / wheelchair users / those with limited 1 mobility Ability to reserve disabled seating for disabled passengers 1
001 36
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Higher seats for those with longer legs / difficulty getting up from lower seats More driver training (some drivers do not lower the ramps / ask non-disabled passengers to vacate disabled seats) More awareness /consideration of disability issues (during the 1 consultation/planning process) Consider facilities for carrying bikes / luggage on buses 1 Improvements / more awareness required for blind / partially sighted Should be a single / unified / fully integrated West Midlands bus service / identity 3 Maintain a range of bus operators within Plan / corridor 1 Want greater choice of routes 1 Would prefer a city-wide plan 1 Prioritise routes less well-served by train / introduce small ‘feeder routes’ to rail 3 stations Important that scheme is completed within short period of time to deliver benefits 2 Important that scheme delivers noticeable improvements to journey times Need public transport network / infrastructure that is comparable with other 1 European cities Introduce car-free / clean air zones in town centres Better / larger route maps showing connections to rail / other bus routes / places of interest TfWM should take full franchise control of fares/routes entirely (comparison with 2 TfL / other combined authority) Scheme should involve (greater) provision for cyclists / cycling 3 More non-radial routes (to avoid travelling into the city centre and then out again) New buses for the scheme Question(s) posed by respondent / consultation provides insufficient detail(s) 6 Too much / excess information in materials / unclear / difficult to understand 1 No knowledge / understanding of the scheme / not informed / never heard of EP Too many ‘buzzwords’/overly positive statistics / more work put into planning than 2 execution Map format was too small 2 Consultation ineffective / responses ignored/unacknowledged Consult with bus users before implementing any changes / keep public fully informed No information about challenges faced while implementing the Plan 3 Questions about if scheme is viable due to Covid-19 (i.e. fewer people using public 3 transport) / won’t be using any public transport until there is a vaccine Won’t work with mandatory face masks / objection to wearing face masks 1 Ensure drivers wear face masks if passengers have to (Better) enforcement of face mask /social distancing rules 1 Hand sanitiser on buses / wear gloves to hold rails or press stop button Scheme is premature / roads may yet need complete overhaul/redesign to suit new 1 travel patterns after Covid-19 Concerned about customer information due to government position on 5G 1 Re-open Bushbury railway station 1 Government should give more support to sustainable public transport Fewer average speed check cameras Demand-response transport Generalised request for improvement / dissatisfaction with current service 1 Cheaper car parking No comment at this time 28 General other / miscellaneous 1
001 37
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Table (b): breakdown of codes used, and themes raised, in response to Q7. Comment theme Number of responses General support 4 Support new/longer bus lanes 2 Plan will reduce/eliminate emissions (by encouraging bus use instead of driving) Support plan but only if TfWM stick to it General opposition 4 Services will be reduced rather than enhanced / current regular stopping services will be cut 1 Waste of money/too expensive/poor value for money 1 Will disrupt/lengthen journey times 1 Ignores (a lot of) routes 2 Corridors are already earmarked for Sprint; no need for EP as well 1 Targets the same routes/areas which see continual improvement while neglecting others 3 Not relevant to services I use / I don't use these routes 14 More/improved trams/trains/light rail would be preferred 2 No improvement required 5 Proposed plans would bring little/no improvement / don't solve current issues with buses 1 Poor connections to main route; pointless improving main route if people can't access it easily EP doesn’t address congestion / will cause/worsen congestion / improved bus service will be pointless if roads still congested 6 Environmental impact of the scheme (e.g. removing trees) does not outweigh the benefits 2 Concerns about disruption whilst routes being constructed 2 Solihull likely to become increasingly car-orientated / shouldn't be focusing on buses Opposition to anything which discourages/reduces capacity for private car usage 1 Support for Sprint Opposition to Sprint (incl. Sprint is a waste of money / won't bring benefits) 6 Request for more information about Sprint 1 More reliable service / run to timetable 4 Faster / more frequent buses Make bus travel easier / encourage more bus use 2 Make bus travel equally accessible across all regions / areas (incl. better service in rural areas) 1 More bus lanes 1 More park and ride facilities 1 More local services Real-time information at all bus stops Sync timetables with phone app to show when next bus is due in real time / how busy bus is Prioritise early-morning/rush hour bus commuters/key workers 1 Consider the effects of big events (e.g. Christmas markets/Commonwealth Games) which lengthen bus journeys for those trying to get home from work Label bus routes with colour-coding Upgrade to electric / hydrogen-powered buses 3 Remove bus lanes and allow cars to flow more freely (to reduce congestion) 1 Wait until passengers are seated before moving off Make sure alighting passengers do so before others board
001 38
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
CCTV is inadequate / doesn’t cover all areas of the bus Penalties for bus operators who refuse to accept valid tickets Don’t stop for longer than necessary if the bus is running ahead of time Run all bus services 24/7 / more frequent services during the night Dual-door buses to speed up entry and exit Improvements to bus stops: better cleaning / queuing systems / should be made safer at night Create simple diagrammatic map (based on TfL map or TfWM train/metro map) showing all bus routes to encourage confidence in using buses across West Midlands Safer buses / safety concerns 3 More professional/friendlier staff More inspectors / bring back conductors More double-deckers / opposition to articulated/bendy buses (so fewer people have to stand) 2 Cleaner buses / improve cleanliness 2 Unpleasant experience on the 51 service due to drunk passengers Improve air conditioning / better ventilation / stop windows steaming up in winter 1 Ban eating and drinking on buses Complaints about passenger behaviour (incl. eating, playing music, shouting, smoking, cannabis use) 1 Audio announcements on all vehicles and routes Officer / guard onboard to help drivers with antisocial behaviour / aggressive passengers (incl. drivers can’t (be expected to) drive as well as manage passenger behaviour) Penalties / police fines for those who smoke / don’t wear masks / are aggressive Remove seats facing each other to prevent people putting feet on opposite seats Dedicated buses for schoolchildren in term time to allow for social distancing / prevent them from crowding in buses / blocking gangways Ensure that children do not sit down if there are adults standing Improve bus WiFi More plugs for charging phones Limit standing / don’t allow more passengers onboard when bus is already full Some bus drivers drive too fast / brake too suddenly/harshly Printed / paper tickets for customers on all routes / regardless of payment method More individual seats to allow easier distancing / remove need to sit next to someone 1 Extend Lode Lane corridor (from Chelmsley Wood to Shirley via Solihull) Bring back 288 service (from Broadway Norton / via Greyhound Lane) Better connections to/from Wolverhampton / include Wolverhampton in plans Better connections to/from Hodge Hill / no buses in Hodge Hill Direct bus to/from Merry Hill Service between Coleshill and Birmingham/Coventry Service between Dudley and Great Bridge More services/routes to/from Castlevale More services/routes to/from Shard End More services/routes to/from Tipton Reinstate direct bus service to Blackheath Town Centre Extend bus lane on A45 eastbound / improve transport issues on A45 2 Keep / increase frequency of / extend X1 service to improve direct access to Birmingham Airport / Birmingham International Station 2 Support for improving the 51 / X51 route 1 Reinstate 38 route between Walsall and Wednesbury – lifeline for elderly/disabled 1
001 39
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Reinstate 27 route between Kings Heath and West Heath Reinstate 29 service for Weoley Castle / improve services in Weoley Castle Reinstate the 54/54A service between Wolverhampton to Stafford Introduce a service between Walsall and Sutton Coldfield / integrate the 77 and 78 services More stops on the 11 service (particularly in Stirchley and Cotteridge) Extend network to reduce number of changes / transport modes required to reach destination 1 More / better bus connections / routes to areas bordering / surrounding West Midlands Extend bus pass coverage / validity outside West Midlands Widen the area to include Lichfield at a later stage Opposition /concerns about demolition of Perry Barr flyover 3 Black Country / South Black Country needs improving / is always left behind / ignored / forgotten 1 Reinstate bus routes where elderly make up high proportion of residents / users Create / protect routes whose users are reliant on bus travel Stagecoach buses should use Pool Meadow bus station in Coventry City Centre Look at services from Fox Hollies to Birmingham City Centre More / better services to/from Rowley Regis Do not cancel direct service from Walsgrave Hospital to Eastern Green Rd Improve the 3 service between Cannock and Walsall Improve the 66 service between Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield Improve the 6 service Improve the route between Leamington Spa and Warwick / University of Warwick Cheaper fares and passes / ensure public transport cheaper than driving / discourage driving 3 Make bus travel cheaper for all, especially elderly (not just students/unemployed) Free bus passes for elderly / under-18s Renationalise buses / should be public service run according to need, not profitability (incl. comments about certain provider(s) having a monopoly on bus travel) 1 Single / joint / 1-ticket system (rather than multiple tickets for different operators) Integrate bus, tram and rail tickets Introduce daily/weekly/monthly bus tickets/passes Enable contactless payments / integrate contactless across multiple bus providers Ensure scheme is cost-effective NX buses have a monopoly over bus travel Free bus passes for 1950s / WASPI women who lost state pension Introduce ‘night out’ pass valid from early evening until early hours the next day Companion fares for those who need to accompany disabled bus users Cheaper fares for short journeys Set up website (like TfL with Oyster) showing statement / record of trips to provide receipts to claim expenses Support for contactless but also important that cash is still accepted as payment Improve accessibility for elderly passengers / wheelchair users / those with limited mobility Ability to reserve disabled seating for disabled passengers Higher seats for those with longer legs / difficulty getting up from lower seats More driver training (some drivers do not lower the ramps / ask non-disabled passengers to vacate disabled seats) More awareness /consideration of disability issues (during the consultation/planning process)
001 40
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Consider facilities for carrying bikes / luggage on buses Improvements / more awareness required for blind / partially sighted Should be a single / unified / fully integrated West Midlands bus service / identity Maintain a range of bus operators within Plan / corridor Want greater choice of routes Would prefer a city-wide plan Prioritise routes less well-served by train / introduce small ‘feeder routes’ to rail stations Important that scheme is completed within short period of time to deliver benefits Important that scheme delivers noticeable improvements to journey times Need public transport network / infrastructure that is comparable with other European cities Introduce car-free / clean air zones in town centres 1 Better / larger route maps showing connections to rail / other bus routes / places of interest TfWM should take full franchise control of fares/routes entirely (comparison with TfL / other combined authority) Scheme should involve (greater) provision for cyclists / cycling 2 More non-radial routes (to avoid travelling into the city centre and then out again) New buses for the scheme Question(s) posed by respondent / consultation provides insufficient detail(s) 2 Too much / excess information in materials / unclear / difficult to understand 2 No knowledge / understanding of the scheme / not informed / never heard of EP 1 Too many ‘buzzwords’/overly positive statistics / more work put into planning than execution Map format was too small Consultation ineffective / responses ignored/unacknowledged 1 Consult with bus users before implementing any changes / keep public fully informed 2 No information about challenges faced while implementing the Plan Questions about if scheme is viable due to Covid-19 (i.e. fewer people using public transport) / won’t be using any public transport until there is a vaccine 2 Won’t work with mandatory face masks / objection to wearing face masks Ensure drivers wear face masks if passengers have to (Better) enforcement of face mask /social distancing rules Hand sanitiser on buses / wear gloves to hold rails or press stop button Scheme is premature / roads may yet need complete overhaul/redesign to suit new travel patterns after Covid-19 Concerned about customer information due to government position on 5G Re-open Bushbury railway station Government should give more support to sustainable public transport Fewer average speed check cameras Demand-response transport Generalised request for improvement / dissatisfaction with current service 1 Cheaper car parking No comment at this time 29 General other / miscellaneous
001 41
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Table (c): breakdown of codes used, and themes raised, in response to Q8. Comment theme Number of responses General support Support new/longer bus lanes 1 Plan will reduce/eliminate emissions (by encouraging bus use instead of driving) Support plan but only if TfWM stick to it General opposition 1 Services will be reduced rather than enhanced / current regular stopping services will be cut Waste of money/too expensive/poor value for money Will disrupt/lengthen journey times Ignores (a lot of) routes Corridors are already earmarked for Sprint; no need for EP as well Targets the same routes/areas which see continual improvement while neglecting others 1 Not relevant to services I use / I don't use these routes More/improved trams/trains/light rail would be preferred 1 No improvement required 2 Proposed plans would bring little/no improvement / don't solve current issues with buses Poor connections to main route; pointless improving main route if people can't access it easily 2 EP doesn’t address congestion / will cause/worsen congestion / improved bus service will be pointless if roads still congested Environmental impact of the scheme (e.g. removing trees) does not outweigh the benefits Concerns about disruption whilst routes being constructed Solihull likely to become increasingly car-orientated / shouldn't be focusing on buses Opposition to anything which discourages/reduces capacity for private car usage Support for Sprint Opposition to Sprint (incl. Sprint is a waste of money / won't bring benefits) Request for more information about Sprint More reliable service / run to timetable 13 Faster / more frequent buses 8 Make bus travel easier / encourage more bus use 2 Make bus travel equally accessible across all regions / areas (incl. better service in rural areas) 6 More bus lanes 5 More park and ride facilities More local services Real-time information at all bus stops 8 Sync timetables with phone app to show when next bus is due in real time / how busy bus is 5 Prioritise early-morning/rush hour bus commuters/key workers 4 Consider the effects of big events (e.g. Christmas markets/Commonwealth Games) which lengthen bus journeys for those trying to get home from work Label bus routes with colour-coding Upgrade to electric / hydrogen-powered buses 5 Remove bus lanes and allow cars to flow more freely (to reduce congestion) 1 Wait until passengers are seated before moving off 2 Make sure alighting passengers do so before others board 1
001 42
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
CCTV is inadequate / doesn’t cover all areas of the bus 1 Penalties for bus operators who refuse to accept valid tickets 1 Don’t stop for longer than necessary if the bus is running ahead of time 1 Run all bus services 24/7 / more frequent services during the night 4 Dual-door buses to speed up entry and exit 1 Improvements to bus stops: better cleaning / queuing systems / should be made safer at night 7 Create simple diagrammatic map (based on TfL map or TfWM train/metro map) showing all bus routes to encourage confidence in using buses across West Midlands 1 Safer buses / safety concerns 13 More professional/friendlier staff 2 More inspectors / bring back conductors 8 More double-deckers / opposition to articulated/bendy buses (so fewer people have to stand) Cleaner buses / improve cleanliness 13 Unpleasant experience on the 51 service due to drunk passengers Improve air conditioning / better ventilation / stop windows steaming up in winter 2 Ban eating and drinking on buses 3 Complaints about passenger behaviour (incl. eating, playing music, shouting, smoking, cannabis use) 11 Audio announcements on all vehicles and routes 2 Officer / guard onboard to help drivers with antisocial behaviour / aggressive passengers (incl. drivers can’t (be expected to) drive as well as manage passenger behaviour) 13 Penalties / police fines for those who smoke / don’t wear masks / are aggressive 3 Remove seats facing each other to prevent people putting feet on opposite seats 1 Dedicated buses for schoolchildren in term time to allow for social distancing / prevent them from crowding in buses / blocking gangways 2 Ensure that children do not sit down if there are adults standing 1 Improve bus WiFi 2 More plugs for charging phones 2 Limit standing / don’t allow more passengers onboard when bus is already full 4 Some bus drivers drive too fast / brake too suddenly/harshly 3 Printed / paper tickets for customers on all routes / regardless of payment method 1 More individual seats to allow easier distancing / remove need to sit next to someone 1 Extend Lode Lane corridor (from Chelmsley Wood to Shirley via Solihull) Bring back 288 service (from Broadway Norton / via Greyhound Lane) Better connections to/from Wolverhampton / include Wolverhampton in plans 2 Better connections to/from Hodge Hill / no buses in Hodge Hill Direct bus to/from Merry Hill 2 Service between Coleshill and Birmingham/Coventry Service between Dudley and Great Bridge More services/routes to/from Castlevale 1 More services/routes to/from Shard End 1 More services/routes to/from Tipton 1 Reinstate direct bus service to Blackheath Town Centre Extend bus lane on A45 eastbound / improve transport issues on A45 Keep / increase frequency of / extend X1 service to improve direct access to Birmingham Airport / Birmingham International Station Support for improving the 51 / X51 route Reinstate 38 route between Walsall and Wednesbury – lifeline for elderly/disabled 2
001 43
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Reinstate 27 route between Kings Heath and West Heath 1 Reinstate 29 service for Weoley Castle / improve services in Weoley Castle 1 Reinstate the 54/54A service between Wolverhampton to Stafford 2 Introduce a service between Walsall and Sutton Coldfield / integrate the 77 and 78 services 1 More stops on the 11 service (particularly in Stirchley and Cotteridge) 1 Extend network to reduce number of changes / transport modes required to reach destination More / better bus connections / routes to areas bordering / surrounding West Midlands 3 Extend bus pass coverage / validity outside West Midlands 1 Widen the area to include Lichfield at a later stage Opposition /concerns about demolition of Perry Barr flyover Black Country / South Black Country needs improving / is always left behind / ignored / forgotten 1 Reinstate bus routes where elderly make up high proportion of residents / users Create / protect routes whose users are reliant on bus travel Stagecoach buses should use Pool Meadow bus station in Coventry City Centre 1 Look at services from Fox Hollies to Birmingham City Centre More / better services to/from Rowley Regis 1 Do not cancel direct service from Walsgrave Hospital to Eastern Green Rd 1 Improve the 3 service between Cannock and Walsall 1 Improve the 66 service between Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield 1 Improve the 6 service Improve the route between Leamington Spa and Warwick / University of Warwick Cheaper fares and passes / ensure public transport cheaper than driving / discourage driving 13 Make bus travel cheaper for all, especially elderly (not just students/unemployed) Free bus passes for elderly / under-18s 1 Renationalise buses / should be public service run according to need, not profitability (incl. comments about certain provider(s) having a monopoly on bus travel) Single / joint / 1-ticket system (rather than multiple tickets for different operators) 10 Integrate bus, tram and rail tickets 4 Introduce daily/weekly/monthly bus tickets/passes 3 Enable contactless payments / integrate contactless across multiple bus providers 2 Ensure scheme is cost-effective NX buses have a monopoly over bus travel Free bus passes for 1950s / WASPI women who lost state pension 1 Introduce ‘night out’ pass valid from early evening until early hours the next day 1 Companion fares for those who need to accompany disabled bus users 1 Cheaper fares for short journeys 2 Set up website (like TfL with Oyster) showing statement / record of trips to provide receipts to claim expenses 1 Support for contactless but also important that cash is still accepted as payment 1 Improve accessibility for elderly passengers / wheelchair users / those with limited mobility 2 Ability to reserve disabled seating for disabled passengers 1 Higher seats for those with longer legs / difficulty getting up from lower seats 1 More driver training (some drivers do not lower the ramps / ask non-disabled passengers to vacate disabled seats) 1 More awareness /consideration of disability issues (during the consultation/planning process) 1
001 44
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
Consider facilities for carrying bikes / luggage on buses 2 Improvements / more awareness required for blind / partially sighted 1 Should be a single / unified / fully integrated West Midlands bus service / identity 2 Maintain a range of bus operators within Plan / corridor Want greater choice of routes Would prefer a city-wide plan Prioritise routes less well-served by train / introduce small ‘feeder routes’ to rail stations Important that scheme is completed within short period of time to deliver benefits Important that scheme delivers noticeable improvements to journey times 1 Need public transport network / infrastructure that is comparable with other European cities Introduce car-free / clean air zones in town centres 1 Better / larger route maps showing connections to rail / other bus routes / places of interest 2 TfWM should take full franchise control of fares/routes entirely (comparison with TfL / other combined authority) Scheme should involve (greater) provision for cyclists / cycling 1 More non-radial routes (to avoid travelling into the city centre and then out again) 1 New buses for the scheme 1 Question(s) posed by respondent / consultation provides insufficient detail(s) Too much / excess information in materials / unclear / difficult to understand No knowledge / understanding of the scheme / not informed / never heard of EP Too many ‘buzzwords’/overly positive statistics / more work put into planning than execution Map format was too small Consultation ineffective / responses ignored/unacknowledged 1 Consult with bus users before implementing any changes / keep public fully informed 1 No information about challenges faced while implementing the Plan Questions about if scheme is viable due to Covid-19 (i.e. fewer people using public transport) / won’t be using any public transport until there is a vaccine 1 Won’t work with mandatory face masks / objection to wearing face masks 1 Ensure drivers wear face masks if passengers have to 1 (Better) enforcement of face mask /social distancing rules 6 Hand sanitiser on buses / wear gloves to hold rails or press stop button 2 Scheme is premature / roads may yet need complete overhaul/redesign to suit new travel patterns after Covid-19 Concerned about customer information due to government position on 5G Re-open Bushbury railway station Government should give more support to sustainable public transport 1 Fewer average speed check cameras 1 Demand-response transport 1 Generalised request for improvement / dissatisfaction with current service 2 Cheaper car parking 1 No comment at this time 14 General other / miscellaneous
001 45
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
A.2 Additional information and supporting materials
001 46 Public consultation Proposals to transform bus services in the West Midlands
Transforming bus The Enhanced Partnership is formed We will be running a 10-week by a Plan and a Scheme. The EP Plan consultation from Monday 6 services in the sets out our overall vision to improve July 2020. All responses must be West Midlands bus services. This is accompanied by received by 11.59pm on Sunday 13 the EP Scheme which sets out how September 2020. Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) we aim to achieve this vision along is responsible for making transport the A34 (north) Walsall – Birmingham Further information about the “happen”. We are accountable for City Centre, the A45 and Lode Lane consultation process and how to take delivering improvements in transport Corridors, from Birmingham Airport / part can be found in the ‘Have your across the region, to create a Solihull – Birmingham City Centre. say’ section of this document. happier, healthier, better connected and more prosperous West We would like to hear your The EP Scheme follows some of the Midlands. views on the proposed Enhanced bus corridors that are included within Partnership, Plan and Scheme. the proposed Sprint programme, The Bus Services Act 2017 offers This document summarises the which will deliver a Bus Rapid us new powers and opportunities proposals, or you can find a copy of Transit (BRT) service. Work on to bring together local authorities the full Enhanced Partnership Plan the first stages of the project is and bus operators in an Enhanced and Enhanced Partnership Scheme due to commence in the second Partnership (EP) to develop a by visiting the consultation webpage half of 2020. For more information coordinated approach to improving www.EPConsultation.tfwm.org.uk about proposed infrastructure bus travel in the West Midlands. This improvements related to the delivery will help all partners involved in the of Sprint, please go to www.tfwm. EP to achieve the ambition to deliver org.uk/development/sprint/ a world-class integrated transport system which is clean, safe and affordable. More information about the act itself is available on the consultation webpage www.EPConsultation.tfwm.org.uk Why change? Given the importance of bus travel Our Enhanced to the region’s society and economy, The EP will see all partners invest in better bus services are vital to Partnership (EP) bus improvements to support the achieving inclusive growth in the An EP is a formal agreement delivery of a world class integrated West Midlands. between local transport authorities transport system that will allow Unemployed residents and those and local bus operators to work seamless, convenient and more together to improve local bus reliable journeys by public transport, on low incomes are much more reliant on bus services and as services. It provides a legally binding and help to reduce journeys made commitment on all parties that by car. a result, improvements to bus travel are essential to tackling will ensure delivery of our vision Buses are key to the provision of transport inequalities. for better bus travel, setting the public transport in the region, with standard across the West Midlands. around 4 out of 5 public transport Whilst significant progress in journeys taken by bus. Between April improving bus services is being 2018 and the end of March 2019, 267 achieved through the Bus Alliance million journeys were made using and the existing Advanced Quality bus services across the region – the Partnership Schemes in place in equivalent of 71.5 million vehicle central Birmingham, Wolverhampton miles. The West Midlands has the and Solihull, these schemes do largest commercially operated bus not cover the whole of the West network in Western Europe. Midlands. The EP Plan provides the strategic vision across the West Midlands, adopting the objectives from our Strategic Vision for Bus1, with the EP Scheme ensuring the delivery of specific improvements to transform bus travel.
1 https://www.tfwm.org.uk/media/38969/final-strategic-vision-for-bus.pdf Map of Enhanced Partnership Plan and Scheme areas
© Crown copyright 2020 OS 100019543. West Midlands Combined Authority. You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, sub-licnence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form. How was the EP Plan The EP Plan 5. Creating a safe, secure and accessible mode for all and and Scheme developed? The EP Plan sets out our overall tackling long held barriers and In June 2019, the West Midlands vision to improve bus services in the perceptions. region, building on the 9 objectives Combined Authority (WMCA) gave 6. Accountable network performance approval for TfWM to proceed with set out in TfWM’s Strategic Vision for Bus: management – tackling issues the development of the EP Plan (or causing congestion and reliability vision for improvement) and Scheme 1. UK leading low emission bus problems. (the actions to be taken to deliver fleet with zero emission corridors the vision). serving the most affected areas of 7. World-leading customer air quality. information, utilising 5G and The EP Plan and Scheme have been all available technologies and developed with the agreement of 2. Fully integrated bus network platforms. participating partners (TfWM, the including local demand responsive seven local authorities and local and rapid transit services 8. All younger people under 25 bus operators) as well as other key supporting rail, coach and Metro supported by discounted travel, stakeholders, including passenger interchange as one network. as well as addressing barriers for groups, industry and business. excluded groups. 3. Simple, convenient and easy to Further information on the use payment options including 9. Evolve a network to support the EP Plan and Scheme documents full capping providing a network 24/7 thriving economy, connecting can be found by visiting the which is value for money and people to new and developing consultation webpage affordable for customers. destinations and attractions. www.EPConsultation.tfwm.org.uk 4. Fewer private car journeys by making bus the mode of choice and creating better access to jobs and long-term change.
The EP Scheme - This EP Scheme involves the delivery We have developed this Scheme of facilities and measures to provide as a priority to help facilitate the A34 (north), A45 and better bus travel, alongside improved transport element of the 2022 Lode Lane Corridor bus service standards. These Commonwealth Games. This will improvements corridors will run from: see significant investment both in vehicle standards (by operators) and The EP Scheme provides the • A34 (north): Walsall to Birmingham infrastructure (by authorities), as framework to improve and deliver City Centre (passing the well as complementary supporting better bus travel in the scheme area. Commonwealth Games Athletes measures (by the authorities). The first Scheme put forward will set Village and Games venue The minimum standards for the delivery Alexander Stadium at Perry Barr). Delivered by TfWM and the of bus services along the A34 (north), local highway authorities, the EP • A45 and Lode Lane: Birmingham A45 and Lode Lane Corridors, Scheme includes many new bus Airport and Solihull to Birmingham forming part of our integrated lanes, 77 enhanced bus stops and City Centre (passing the Games transport network. More schemes improvements to traffic signal venues at the NEC). may be brought forward under the priority. The Scheme will set EP Plan in the coming years, if it minimum standards for 52 existing is necessary to formally agree bus bus services and the 320 buses improvements for an area. that serve these routes, covering approximately 550 miles across the West Midlands. Any new routes introduced into the Scheme area will also need to meet these standards. Due to begin in 2021, this Scheme • Setting of minimum vehicle • More joined-up maintenance aims to deliver the following specifications for emission standards of infrastructure and traffic improvements in collaboration with that will help improve air quality in enforcement at roads, bus stops bus operators and authorities: the region and provide a roadmap and traffic signals. towards a zero-emission fleet. • Investment in bus priority facilities • Better managed and a more and bus stop upgrades, providing • Contactless payment options joined-up response to highway pleasant waiting environments available for every operator. disruption such as roadworks. and real-time information that will Continued availability of operators provide reassurance to passengers, ticketing products, as well as • Improved sharing of bus on the next bus arrival. network-wide multi-operator performance data. tickets, enabling passengers • A safer and more enjoyable travel to easily interchange between experience including minimum services within the scheme area standards for buses to ensure a without payment of a separate fare. high quality. This will include CCTV, Wi-Fi, USB charging points, audio/ • Provision of better integrated bus visual next stop announcements, services which will help support provision of induction hearing loops the shift towards use of more at every wheelchair space and sustainable forms of transport, priority seat, and integrated travel reducing the need for private information onboard, enabling car trips. passengers to link journeys with other transport modes. Benefits of the Reducing bus emissions is an Whilst improvements are made to important and vital part of the the network we will work together EP Scheme programme to improve people’s with partners to manage disruption Investment in bus priority health and quality of life by cleaning and keep this to a minimum. infrastructure and bus measures up the air in the West Midlands. Andy Street, the Mayor of the West The EP Plan and Scheme are will provide a more enjoyable, more available from the consultation reliable and safer travel experience Midlands, and West Midlands Bus Alliance have committed to create webpage and provides more detailed relative to current bus provision, information on the objectives and with the improvement of bus journey the cleanest bus fleet in the UK, outside of London. the expected benefits of the scheme. times. The EP Scheme improvements www.EPConsultation.tfwm.org.uk will help to support a greater use of In addition to setting standards bus services – encouraging people to for electric/zero emission buses, use bus in place of private transport. encouraging people to use bus This proposed EP Scheme runs services instead of private vehicles through some of the most deprived will also help improve air quality in areas of the region, with 11 of the the region by reducing congestion. 14 areas served being in the 50% most deprived in the West Midlands. The EP Scheme will ensure clear The EP will help to tackle transport accountability of partners to deliver, inequalities in the region. maintain and manage better bus services that is more binding than traditional partnerships, to ensure a better passenger experience.
Next steps The EP Partners, including operators, then be made by the WMCA and the will consider how the proposed EP local authorities. The figure below Once the consultation closes on Plan and Scheme need to change provides our current timeline for the Sunday 13 September 2020, we to reflect suggestions made in this making of the Enhanced Partnership. will carefully consider all feedback consultation. If changes are made to received and prepare a consultation the EP Plan and/or Scheme, the EP report. This report will summarise will be subject to another operator the key themes and note how your period, for a minimum 28 days. Once responses have been used to inform agreed, the EP Plan and EP Scheme the final EP Plan and EP Scheme. will go to the WMCA Transport The report will be published on the Delivery Committee for approval. TfWM website. The EP Plan and EP Scheme will
Preparation Operator Public LA & WMCA of an EP Period Consultation Approvals 28 days June - 6 July to November 2020 December 2019 EP Plan 13 September 20 December 2020 2019 – 24 January 2020 EP Scheme 28 February – 28 March 2020 Have your say To support the environment, we encourage you to respond using the Our public consultation will run online questionnaire if you can. between Monday 6 July to Sunday 13 September 2020. All responses must Printed copies of this consultation be received by 11.59pm Sunday 13 booklet, questionnaire and business September 2020. reply envelope are available by request from Transport for There are a number of ways for you West Midlands. to comment on our proposals during the consultation period: For digital copies of all consultation materials and • Online: further details please visit the www.EPConsultation.tfwm.org.uk consultation webpage and completing the questionnaire www.EPConsultation.tfwm.org.uk
• By email: [email protected]
• By post: Request a printed copy of the questionnaire and Business Reply envelope by contacting TfWM To request a copy of these documents in a different format please contact Transport for West Midlands. Phone: 0345 303 6760 Email: [email protected]
This consultation will close on Sunday 13 September 2020 Enhanced Partnership Plan and Scheme Consultation
We’d like to hear your views on our proposals to improve bus travel across the West Midlands through an Enhanced Partnership Plan and Scheme. Details of our proposals can be found in the consultation booklet and other materials available on our webpage. Please read them before completing this form.
This consultation questionnaire should take no more than 10 minutes to complete. The information you provide will help us to develop a better transport network and services in the West Midlands.
Please submit your comments by 11.59pm on Sunday 13 September 2020. If you require information in another format (e.g. large print, braille, audio, other language) please phone TfWM on 0345 303 6760 or email.
Section A - How are you responding to this consultation?
Q1 Are you responding to this consultation as an individual, or on behalf of an organisation, group or club?
As an individual On behalf of an organisation, group or club Other
Other (please specify)
Q2a Organisation Details: Please provide the following details about the organisation, group or club that you represent:
Organisation name
Postcode Web address
Your role
Q2b Please describe how the views of members were gathered:
Q3 What is your home postcode? Please fill this in clearly and accurately so that we can understand where people are responding from. All data will be treated as confidential and it will be used for research purposes only; it will never be passed onto any marketing or advertising companies.
Section B - The Enhanced Partnership Plan
The Enhanced Partnership Plan sets out the overall vision for Transport for West Midlands, local authorities and bus operators to work together to improve local bus travel in the West Midlands. Information about the Plan can be found in the consultation booklet and the EP Plan document. These documents are available on our webpage.
Q4 To what extent do you agree with our vision to improve local bus travel across the West Midlands network, as laid out in the Enhanced Partnership Plan?
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Q5 Do you have any comments on our proposed Enhanced Partnership Plan? Section C - Enhanced Partnership Scheme: A34 (north), A45 and Lode Lane Corridors
The Enhanced Partnership Scheme (EP Scheme) sets out the actions we propose to take to improve, develop and deliver better bus travel on the A34 (north), A45 and Lode Lane Corridors. Information about the EP Scheme can be found in the consultation booklet and the EP Scheme document. These documents are available on our webpage.
Q6 To what extent do you agree that our proposed EP Scheme will raise the standard of bus travel along the A34 (north), A45 and Lode Lane Corridors ?
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Q7 Do have any other comments you would like to make about the EP Scheme for the A34 (north), A45 and Lode Lane corridors? If you are commenting on a specific paragraph in the EP Scheme document, please make reference to the paragraph number in your response.
Q8 If there are any other standards or services that you feel would enhance the experience of the bus user, please provide details below:
Section D - Your travel habits
The following questions relate to your travel habits pre-COVID-19 restrictions. Please answer the questions with this in mind. Q9 How often do you use bus services within each of these areas or routes across the West Midlands? Daily Weekly Monthly Less often Never
A34 (north)
A45
Lode Lane
West Midlands generally
Q10 What are the main purposes of the journey(s) you make by bus?
Work/ business Study Shopping Visiting friends/relatives Other leisure/recreation Personal business Other
Other (please specify)
Section E - About You
Transport for West Midlands is committed to the principle that all our customers have the right to equality and fairness in the way they are treated and in the services that they receive. It will help us to check that we are providing services fairly if you answer the questions below. Information you give will be used to see if there are any differences in views for different groups of people, and to check if services are being delivered in a fair and accessible way. By providing data about your age, gender, ethnic group and disability you consent to it being used for this purpose. The information in this section will be used for no other purpose. We will follow our Data Protection Act guidelines to keep your information secure and confidential.
Q11 Are you:
Male Female Transgender Other Prefer not to say Q12 Which of these age groups do you belong to?
Under 16 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-59 60 or over Prefer not to say
Q13 Which of the following best describes your ethnic background?
White British White Other Mixed race Asian or Asian British Black or Black British Prefer not to say Other
Other (please specify)
Q14 Do you consider yourself to have a disability?
Yes No Prefer not to say
Data protection All data will be treated as confidential and will never be passed onto any marketing or advertising companies. Personal data will only be used for its original purpose, i.e. consultation on the Enhanced Partnership Plan and Scheme. We will publish anonymised responses, parts of responses, or a summarised version of responses to the questions within our “Consultation Summary” document. Your response will be stored electronically on a secure system for two years following the end of the consultation period.
If you wish to discuss this questionnaire in further detail or you want further information on how your data will be collected, stored and used, please email.
Transport for West Midlands is part of the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA). Further information on how your data will be collected, stored and used please refer to WMCA's Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey Please click 'Submit' to send us your feedback Consultation Web Page
Bus Information Board
Social Media Posts
Enhanced Partnership Consultation Report
001