Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 242
March 19 Final
Quality Assurance
Document Management
Document Title Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services Name of File 10242 REP Review of Western Isles Bus Services FINAL.docx Last Revision Saved On 05/03/2019 16:24:00 Version V1 V2 FINAL V3 FINAL Prepared by MM/CS/AG MM/CS/AG/JT/BS SW Checked by SW MM Click&TypeInitials Approved by SW SW SW Issue Date 7/12/2018 20/2/2019 5/3/2019
Copyright
The contents of this document are © copyright The TAS Partnership Limited, with the exceptions set out below. Reproduction in any form, in part or in whole, is expressly forbidden without the written consent of a Director of The TAS Partnership Limited.
Cartography derived from Ordnance Survey mapping is reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of HMSO under licence number WL6576 and is © Crown Copyright – all rights reserved.
Other Crown Copyright material, including census data and mapping, policy guidance and official reports, is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under licence number C02W0002869.
The TAS Partnership Limited retains all right, title and interest, including copyright, in or to any of its trademarks, methodologies, products, analyses, software and know-how including or arising out of this document, or used in connection with the preparation of this document. No licence under any copyright is hereby granted or implied.
Most photographs are reproduced with the kind permission of Roger French.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
The TAS Partnership Limited regards the daily and hourly rates that are charged to clients and the terms of engagement under which any projects are undertaken, as trade secrets and therefore exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
The TAS Partnership Limited often uses commercially or personally sensitive data provided under confidentiality agreements by third parties to inform projects and disclosure of this information could constitute an actionable breach of confidence. This detailed content is therefore likely to be exempt from disclosure under the Act.
Consequently, The TAS Partnership Limited will expect to be consulted before any content of this document is released under a Freedom of Information request.
Guildhall House 59-61 Guildhall Street Preston PR1 3NU Telephone: 01772 204988
[email protected] www.taspartnership.co.uk
Contents
Executive Summary ...... 5
1 Introduction and Objectives ...... 11
1.1 Introduction ...... 11 1.2 Objectives ...... 11
2 Analysis of Current Contracts ...... 13
2.1 Introduction ...... 13 2.2 Current Situation ...... 13 2.3 Contract Summary – Public Bus ...... 14 2.4 Contract Summary – School Buses ...... 15 2.5 Non-Entitled Pupil Transport ...... 16 2.6 Costs...... 17 2.7 Seasonality ...... 19
3 Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ...... 21
3.1 Introduction ...... 21 3.2 Resource Tenders ...... 21 3.3 Call-off Contracts ...... 21 3.4 Operation Only Contracts ...... 22 3.6 Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations - TUPE ...... 24 3.7 The Need to Register a School Service ...... 24 3.8 PSVAR Definitions ...... 25 3.9 Control of Pass Issue ...... 26 3.10 Implications for the Comhairle ...... 27 3.12 Lotting Options for Lewis and Harris ...... 28 3.13 One Contract ...... 28 3.14 Geographical Contracts ...... 29 3.15 Vehicle Workings ...... 30 3.16 Vehicle Specifications ...... 31 3.17 Demand Responsive Travel Arrangements ...... 32 3.18 Information to Support Contracts ...... 33
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contents ▪ 1
4 Case Studies for Tendering ...... 35
4.1 Case Studies ...... 35 4.2 Brockenhurst College ...... 35 4.3 Runshaw College ...... 35 4.4 Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) ...... 36 4.5 Shetland ...... 37 4.6 Jersey ...... 39 4.7 Summary ...... 40
5 Fares and Ticketing Strategy ...... 43
5.1 Introduction ...... 43 5.2 Fares Basis ...... 43 5.3 Fares Comparisons ...... 44 5.4 Single and Return Fares ...... 45 5.5 Multi Journey Tickets ...... 48 5.6 Future Ticketing Development ...... 50
6 New Contracts - Service Delivery Options ...... 53
6.1 Introduction ...... 53 6.2 CnES Selected Options ...... 53 6.3 ‘School Plus’ Operations ...... 54 6.4 Reduced Service Provision ...... 54 6.5 Maintaining the Current Network ...... 55 6.6 Operator Lead Network ...... 55 6.7 One Contract ...... 55 6.8 Cost Apportionment ...... 56 6.9 Future Fares Strategy ...... 57 6.10 Fare Change Scenarios ...... 58 6.11 Fares Alternatives ...... 60
7 Marketing and Publicity ...... 61
7.1 Current Situation ...... 61 7.2 Potential Improvement – Day Rover Ticket ...... 61 7.3 Website Improvements ...... 63
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contents ▪ 2
8 Operator Consultations ...... 67
8.1 Introduction ...... 67 8.2 Current and Future ...... 67 8.3 Larger Lots ...... 67 8.4 Revised Service Provision ...... 67 8.5 Suggested Changes to Current Services...... 68 8.6 Drivers ...... 68 8.7 Fares ...... 69 8.8 Vehicles ...... 69 8.9 Subsidy Adjuster ...... 70 8.10 Passenger Priorities ...... 70 8.11 Future Ticketing ...... 70 8.12 Other Issues ...... 71
9 Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ...... 73
9.1 Introduction ...... 73 9.2 Survey Design and Data Issues ...... 73 9.3 Responses ...... 74 9.4 Survey Monkey Completion ...... 74 9.5 Q1a What Service Do You Use the Most ...... 75 9.6 Q1b Which Stop Nearest Your Home do you Board at? ...... 76 9.7 Q1c: Which Stop do you usually Travel to?...... 83 9.8 Q1d: What Time do you usually Get on the Bus?...... 83 9.9 Q2a: What is the Main Reason for your Journey? ...... 85 9.10 Q2b: If you are travelling for Work, which Sector do you Work in? ...... 87 9.11 Q2c: What Time do you Normally Start Work? ...... 88 9.12 Q2d: What Time do you Normally Finish Work? ...... 89 9.13 Q3: How often do you Travel on this Service? ...... 90 9.14 Q4: Do you Travel at the same Time Each Day on this Service? ...... 92 9.15 Q5: What Kind of Ticket do you Use? ...... 93 9.16 Q6: Do you Consider Current Fares Offer Value for Money? ...... 95 9.17 Q7: Do you Use Any Other Bus Services? ...... 96 9.18 Q8-1: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service Ran at Different Times? ...... 97
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contents ▪ 3
9.19 Q8-2: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service Ran at a Reduced Frequency? ...... 100 9.20 Q8-3: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service had Increased Fares? ...... 102 9.21 Conclusions ...... 104
10 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 107
10.1 Conclusions ...... 107 10.2 Recommendations ...... 111
Appendix A: Passenger Survey Questionnaire ...... 113
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contents ▪ 4
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1 The TAS Partnership was appointed by the Comhairle to assist in preparing the subsidised bus network on Lewis and Harris for retendering in 2019. This commission was comprised of four main objectives:
Suggest ways of achieving significant cost savings using a range of service delivery options incorporating a progressive combination of efficiencies and service reductions designed to meet future transport budget levels;
Set out alternative methods of grouping contracts into geographically or operationally efficient lots for tendering;
Set out scenarios for service delivery based around the level of provision of non-statutory journeys (all of those except transport to school which Scottish law decrees must be provided); and
Examine the effect of various options for increasing bus fares.
2. Contract Summary
2.1 There are currently 48 contracts due to expire in April 2019 using a total of 59 vehicles: 28 coaches, 5 low floor buses, 1 midicoach, 22 minibuses and 3 small minibuses at a total annual cost of £4,195,000 for Lewis and Harris.
2.2 By internal agreement, 48% (£2,013,600) of cost is allocated to the public network and 52% (£2,181,400) to Mainstream Education transport. On this basis:
Annual revenue including concessions of £521,000 covers only 21% of operating costs – thus the Comhairle funds the remaining 79% of net contract costs;
the subsidy to each passenger on the public network is £6.41 and
school transport costs £9.46 per day per pupil on average.
2.3 We estimate some 312,000 passenger trips and 462,000 trips by school pupils annually.
3. Data and Operator Consultation
3.1 Summarised Electronic Ticket Machine (ETM) data was supplied but not at as detailed a level as we first envisaged which limited our input into the network review. We were able to analyse ticket sales and passenger numbers for a complete year.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 5
3.2 Interviews with the contractors were carried out as part of the study to gain insight into the operators’ response to various proposed changes to the network and feedback on current practices. The feedback provided by the operators was largely aligned in opinion, key points of response were that:
Overall no contractors felt safe to overbid for any contract;
Smaller lots were felt to give CnES better value for money, as it allows smaller operators to bid on their own account;
A school focussed (rather than a school only) network was met with a generally positive response, although some operators noted their services are already run in the same fashion;
The suggestion of replacing coaches with low floor buses was met with negative responses from the operators who primarily used coaches, they felt that the terrain was not appropriate and that the public use was better served by coaches.
Moving to contactless payment methods and QR codes generated some interest;
3.3 Other issues noted from discussion with contractors highlighted the lack of notice between contract award and start date – this has led to short notice registrations with the traffic commissioner and can create issues with sourcing additional vehicles to fulfil the contract.
4. Passenger Survey
4.1 The survey was carried out in December 2018. Forms were available online, with printed versions available in Stornoway and Tarbert. There were 470 responses in total. There were some clear findings which should be considered in producing the revised network:
Noting the pre-Christmas timing, shopping was the predominant trip purpose (239 out of 470 respondents) but only slightly ahead of employment (220 out of 470);
4.2 It is a mistake to assume that employment-related trips occur solely on 'peak' journeys or that passengers travel to and from work at fixed times every day, a significant number has a range of times to finish work and in particular;
48% of those travelling 'daily' said that they didn't travel at the same time every day; and
There was a significant number of work trips after 1800;
4.3 The proportion of health-related trips was unusually high at around 15%. This is around three times the 'norm'. Any significant reduction in service levels
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 6
would put pressure - including increased transport demands - on health agencies and reduce the opportunity for patients to attend appointments;
4.4 Passengers were, in general, much less resistant to changes to times or increases in fares than they were to reduced levels of service, when asked:
44% said they would travel less frequently if times changed;
70% said they would travel less frequently if the service was reduced but only
36% said they would travel less frequently if fares increased.
5. Lotting Options for New Contracts
5.1 CnES has produced nine scenarios for tendering the new network. It intends to accept bids for all nine scenarios. These are:
1. Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr before 0900 leave after 1700) and transport for entitled pupils only (School Plus);
2. Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr before 0900 leave after 1700) and transport for both entitled and non-entitled pupils (School Plus)
3. Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr for 0800 and 0900 leave after 1700 and 1800), reduced inter-peak service and transport for entitled pupils only (Reduced Service Provision);
4. Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr for 0800 and 0900 leave after 1700 and 1800), reduced inter-peak service and transport for both entitled and non- entitled pupils (Reduced Service Provision);
5. Maintaining the current network in its entirety;
6. Geographical larger lots including commuter runs to Stornoway, reduced inter-peak service defined by the operator and transport for entitled pupils only (Operator Lead Network);
7. Geographical larger lots including commuter runs to Stornoway, reduced inter-peak service defined by the operator and transport for both entitled and non-entitled pupils (Operator Lead Network);
8. Have the whole network as one contract, allowing the operator to provide what it can within the budget given after transport for entitled pupils is provided; and
9. Have the whole network as one contract, allowing the operator to provide what it can within the budget given after transport for both entitled and non-entitled pupils is provided.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 7
5.2 Other than in scenario 5 the assumption is that there is no evening service provided. Selecting from Options 1 to 7 is chiefly a matter of the level of available finance. In the main report we examine the pros and cons of each option.
5.3 In Options 1 and 2 with the public service reduced to a single commuter run into Stornoway before 0900 and leaving Stornoway after 1700 we have concerns that driver retention might be difficult with no work between peaks and that TUPE regulations would result in drivers being paid to do no work. Also that there might be undue expense if the equivalent school run is of a length that it cannot return to Stornoway by 1730, thus needing a second vehicle.
5.4 We have a number of concerns regarding letting all contracts as a single lot, chiefly the restricted number of available bidders, the adverse effect on the level of competition for future contracts and the potential business failure of the single contractor.
5.5 Note that the decision regarding whether or not to provide transport for non- entitled pupils is essentially a Comhairle policy matter. The difference in cost is only one consideration. If transport for non-entitled pupils is withdrawn, the fundamental issue is to ask how these pupils will continue to attend school.
6. January 2020 Legal Position for Bus Operation
6.1 On 1 January 2020 the final stage of the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations comes into force, affecting coaches. All coaches on a scheduled service must meet accessibility requirements. PSVAR does not apply to any operation which is not classed as a ‘scheduled service’. CnES then has three options for school transport provision:
Closed Door Contract - carrying only pupils who are transported free of charge. These do not need to be registered, nor do they need to comply with PSVAR.
Closed Door Contract with Farepaying Pupils - These do not need to be registered, nor do they need to comply with PSVAR. But ALL pupils must be carried to the same school or college; farepayers must all be charged the same amount; the operator must take no part in selling the tickets and the journey must NOT be advertised in a public timetable.
Standard School Contract with Farepaying Pupils - The Comhairle is free to charge pupils as it wishes and to include other members of the general public and may pick up and set down at any timetabled point. But it MUST be registered as a local bus service, operate to a set route and timetable and therefore must also comply with PSVAR.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 8
7. Fares and Ticketing
7.1 From comparison against similar areas, it is clear that fares on the CnES network are generally lower than on comparator operations. Fares on the CnES network are at a level where even significant increases are insufficient to prompt existing travellers to abandon the bus in favour of private transport; the reactions from the survey were far less negative to fare increases than to frequency reductions. Yet our experience elsewhere informs us that reactions to above-inflation increases will be negative.
7.2 We recommend the introduction of a network day ticket at a premium price and aimed mainly at visitors, but its usefulness depends on the extent of the future network.
7.3 There have been suggestions regarding moving towards the introduction of alternative payment methods for tickets, particularly smartcards. However it is our understanding that smartcards are quickly becoming overtaken by other alternative means that are more cost effective to introduce, such as contactless ticket purchase, QR codes on paper tickets and phone app type payment methods.
8. Marketing and Publicity
8.1 Our major concern is that many of the CnES timetables are over-complex and difficult to understand and not presented in the simplest and most penetrable format and recommended that effort was put into simplification.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 9
1Introduction and Objectives 1
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 The TAS Partnership Ltd (TAS) was commissioned by Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (CnES) to assist in preparing the subsidised bus network on Lewis and Harris for retendering in 2019.
1.2 Objectives
1.2.1 There were four main objectives set, these were to:
a) Suggest ways of achieving significant cost savings using a range of service delivery options incorporating a progressive combination of efficiencies and service reductions designed to meet future transport budget levels;
b) Set out alternative methods of grouping contracts into geographically or operationally efficient lots for tendering;
c) Set out scenarios for service delivery based around the level of provision of non-statutory journeys (all of those except transport to school which Scottish law decrees must be provided); and
d) Examine the effect of various options for increasing bus fares.
1.2.2 In addition to this we sought to:
Examine and provide feedback on previous tendering documentation;
Analyse current fares and ticketing and suggest future strategies;
Analyse current marketing methods and suggest future strategies;
Consult with current operators and
Carry out a survey of passengers.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Introduction and Objectives ▪ 11
2Analysis of Current Contracts 2
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 This section looks at the current situation in regard to passenger usage by service and by ticket type. It also looks at costs and seasonal fluctuations.
2.2 Current Situation
2.2.1 The existing contracts for the provision of bus services on Lewis and Harris were secured through a tendering process that commenced in October 2013. Details of the services required were advertised on the Public Contracts Scotland (“PCS”) Portal and in the Official Journal of the European Union. The tender return date was 18 November and the services commenced operation on 1 April 2014. All daytime contracts were awarded for five years. The evening service contracts were let for one year with a one year extension.
2.2.2 The new contracts were originally expected to commence on 1 April 2019. The current likelihood now is that the current contracts will be extended to August 2019 with the option of a further extension to 1 December. The August date implies the need to place the contracts on Public Contracts Scotland around the end of February 2019 to allow sufficient time for the required 30 day notice period, a standstill period after award and sufficient lead time for the operators.
2.2.3 Each bus service falls into one of four categories:
‘Principal Integrated’: covering Monday to Saturday daytime operations on the main trunk services and containing multiple vehicle workings;
‘Feeder or Local Integrated’: operating services from villages that connect with the Principal Integrated services at designated interchange points;
‘School Only’: usually operated by large vehicles that are required where the volume of scholars would overwhelm the standard service; and
‘Public Evening or Early Morning’: additional journeys on the main Principal Integrated services at times outside the Monday to Saturday daytime timetable
2.2.4 A summary of the existing contract distribution is shown in Table 1. It should be noted that the vehicles operating the Public Evening or Early Morning services are likely to be used to provide other services during the main part of the day and so have no impact upon the total vehicle requirement.
2.2.5 Much of the network is specified for operation by coaches, but with effect from 1 January 2020 such vehicles, if registered on or after 1 January 2001 and
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Analysis of Current Contracts ▪ 13
having a seating capacity of 23 or more, must comply with the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR) when used on bus services open to the general public1. This is discussed further in section 3.8. We understand that only a small number of the coach type vehicles currently in use on CnES contracted services are PSVAR compliant.
Table 1: Current CnES Bus Service Contracts
Service Category Number Vehicles Required Current Annual of Cost Contracts Principal Integrated 5 16 coaches, 5 low floor buses, 3 £2,286,200 minibuses Feeder or Local Integrated 16 1 coach, 15 minibuses, 2 small £847,700 minibuses School Only 17 11 coaches, 1 midicoach, 4 £780,800 minibuses, 1 small minibus Public Evening or Early 10 2 low floor buses, 1 midicoach, 7 £280,300 Morning minibuses Total 48 28 coaches, 5 low floor buses, 1 £4,195,000 midicoach, 22 minibuses, 3 small minibuses
2.3 Contract Summary – Public Bus
2.3.1 We have been supplied with summary electronic ticket machine (ETM) records for the year between April 2017 and March 2018, split into four quarterly batches relating to passenger numbers and on-bus revenue by ticket type and
1 The ‘general public’ includes schoolchildren when they pay fares.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Analysis of Current Contracts ▪ 14
service and six two-monthly sets relating to passenger boarding and alighting points.
2.3.2 The full year’s data reveals that:
311,898 passengers were recorded,
On-bus revenue totalled £348,050.
Concessionary fare reimbursement from Transport Scotland (including for Young Scot passes) amounted to £173,112;
Giving total revenue of £521,163.
2.3.3 Contracts for evening services are made separately and they will be an obvious target for cost saving, yet we have no available data which shows their level of usage. The survey (see section 9.8 et. seq.) suggests a relatively high level of usage but these could have been ‘protective’ answers.
2.4 Contract Summary – School Buses
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Analysis of Current Contracts ▪ 15
2.4.1 It is apparent from the ETM data that in general the use of scholars’ passes is not recorded2. Therefore overall passenger numbers are likely to be significantly higher than those reported above and the overall subsidy per passenger correspondingly lower. We therefore needed to make some estimate of school trips. Table 2 below uses data supplied by CnES to list pupils travelling to each school on Lewis and Harris by bus and whether such trips are statutory (‘Entitled’) or discretionary (‘Paying or EDA’).
2.4.2 These total 1,350 pupils who have some form of entitlement to daily travel to and from school for 190 days of term. This allows us to calculate an annual pupil ridership figure. Experience elsewhere has shown that it is improbable that all pupils travel every day so we have applied a discount factor of ten per cent to estimate actual annual trips. We therefore calculate the number of bus trips by pupils to be 461,700 per year.
2.4.3 In the italicised right hand column of Table 2 there are other pupils in the ‘Could Pay’ category which are included here because they were in the CnES data. We are unsure as to their status, whether they travel by bus or not. They are not, therefore, included in the above calculation.
2.5 Non-Entitled Pupil Transport
2.5.1 Non-entitled pupils who currently use school buses fall into two groups. There are those provided with dedicated school buses which operate services less than the statutory distance from school and the second group buys tickets in advance to travel on school buses alongside entitled children.
2.5.2 In the former case, removal of any dedicated school bus is likely to be politically controversial but it is something that other local authorities have had to face, notably following decisions to withdraw free transport to denominational (primarily Roman Catholic) schools.
2.5.3 The second group pose different issues. Firstly that they pay very little for travel to and from school. On average CnES pays £9.46 per day for transport of an entitled pupil. Non-entitled pupils pay as little as forty five pence per day up to a maximum of £2.20 per day. Secondly, what would these pupils do if transport was to be withdrawn? The latter is an important issue to consider if transport available to the general public is provided alongside dedicated school transport. The non-entitled pupils are ‘the general public’ and could easily overcrowd some buses at school time.
2.5.4 Provision of such transport is a policy decision for CnES.
2 There were some 2,474 uses of passes to Edward Scott School recorded. This equates to something like thirteen per schoolday which is a gross underestimate of the likely level of travel. Therefore we have disregarded these uses and included Sire Edward Scott School in the subsequent school travel calculations.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Analysis of Current Contracts ▪ 16
Table 2: Scholars’ Passes by School (2017/18 Data)
School % By Paying Could School Name Location Roll Bus Entitled or E.D.A Pay Back Back Village 99 60% 40 19 35 Bernera Breacleit, Bernera 12 83% 10 Breasclete Breasclete Village 34 35% 8 4 4 Laxdale Laxdale , Stornoway 167 35% 1 57 63 Leverhulme Leverburgh, Harris 29 38% 10 1 4 Lionel Lionel, Ness 66 42% 21 7 31 Pairc Gravir Village 27 74% 20 Sgoil an Rubha Bayble, Point 138 65% 60 30 40 Sgoil an Toabh Siar Barvas Village 64 80% 50 1 1 Sgoil nan Loch Leurbost Village 97 87% 82 2 Shawbost Shawbost Village 53 47% 24 1 11 Sir E Scott (primary) Tarbert, Harris 86 20% 17 Sir E Scott (secondary) Tarbert, Harris 87 94% 67 15 Stornoway Primary Stornoway Town 462 16% 56 17 53 The Nicolson Institute Stornoway Town 1,043 68% 617 91 105 Tolsta Tolsta Village 27 0% 18 Tong Tong Village 93 4% 4 35 Uig Timsgarry, Uig District 18 100% 18 Lewis and Harris Total 2,595 52% 1,084 266 400
2.6 Costs
2.6.1 The annual total cost to CnES of the Lewis and Harris bus network is £4,195,000, with, by internal agreement, 48% (£2,013,600) allocated to the public network and 52% (£2,181,400) to mainstream Education transport. On this basis:
revenue (£521k) is covering only 20.6% of costs3 with the net cost to The Comhairle covering the remaining 79.4%;
the subsidy per passenger on the public network is £6.41 and
each school transport trip per pupil costs £4.73 on average.
2.6.2 The network-wide distribution of recorded tickets and the resulting revenue is shown in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure A and Figure B. Taken together concessionary travellers (excluding Young Scot and forming 46.7% of
3 Costs are taken to be the sum of subsidy plus revenue.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Analysis of Current Contracts ▪ 17
passengers) and users of traditional adult and child single and return tickets comprise 91.4% of all recorded passengers.
2.6.3 Despite efforts to encourage their use through preferential pricing the take up of ten journey tickets, in both weekly and two-weekly formats, is low and their use represents only 0.5% of all recorded passenger journeys.
Table 3: Distribution of Tickets and Revenue (By Volume)
Ticket Type Records On Bus Revenue Off Bus Revenue Total Revenue Concession 145,620 £0 £169,243 £169,243 Adult Single 86,411 £168,474 £0 £168,474 Adult Return 26,945 £113,949 £0 £113,949 Child Single 26,245 £25,071 £0 £25,071 Punch 20,471 £0 £0 £0 Child Return 2,160 £4,610 £0 £4,610 Young Scot 1,964 £3,869 £3,869 £7,738 Adult 10 Journey 1,647 £29,143 £0 £29,143 Rover 388 £2,483 £0 £2,483 Child 10 Journey 47 £450 £0 £450 Total 311,898 £348,050 £173,112 £521,163
Figure A: Passenger Distribution by Ticket Type
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Analysis of Current Contracts ▪ 18
Figure B: Revenue Distribution by Ticket Type
2.7 Seasonality
2.7.1 Across the network as a whole the January to March quarter has the lowest passenger numbers with the October to December quarter only slightly higher. In contrast the April to June and the July to September quarters see loadings at 19% and 25% above the base level respectively.
2.7.2 The most extreme examples in absolute numbers are services W2, W5 and W10 but in terms of the percentage variation services W11 and W13 have a busiest quarter with more than double the passenger numbers of the lowest. A comparison of the actual passenger numbers by service and quarter is shown in Table 4, while the total patronage by quarter is in Figure C.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Analysis of Current Contracts ▪ 19
Table 4: Passenger Numbers by Service and Quarter
Service April - June July - September October - December January - March W1 11,640 11,872 10,204 10,935 W2 13,878 14,619 10,815 10,251 W3 550 706 735 638 W4 366 376 395 476 W5 36,383 39,144 33,187 32,705 W7 2,807 3,092 2,780 2,597 W8 4,308 3,893 4,447 3,962 W9 758 725 659 558 W10 8,895 10,003 5,896 5,516 W11 419 166 266 224 W12 77 113 128 127 W13 1,843 1,751 1,286 885 W14 1,895 1,764 1,613 1,592 Network 83,819 88,224 72,411 70,466
Figure C: Total Passengers on the Public Network by Season
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Analysis of Current Contracts ▪ 20
3Contract Options and Lotting Strategy 3
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Within this section we look at the various ways in which services can be tendered and some of the established and new legal requirements as well as future options for the Bus na Comhairle operation.
3.1.2 As stated in 2.2.3 services are grouped into four categories. The current tendering method uses these categories to form the basis of the lots. Services are contracted out either as a whole or split between ‘Integrated’ (daytime) and Evening services. School journeys which are not open to the public are mostly tendered separately.
3.2 Resource Tenders
3.2.1 Resource tendering is when the Comhairle, rather than specifying a route, timetable and vehicle type instead specifies only the vehicle type and driver requirements for a particular time period, but the precise nature of the route is to be solely at the Comhairle’s discretion within the confines of the other contract constraints.
3.2.2 For example, the Comhairle may specify a 16 seat vehicle and appropriate driver for a period between 0730 and 1700 on schooldays only. It then uses the vehicle as it sees fit to optimise use on home to school transport, adult social care, public transport operation etc. The price is based on one or more fixed rates, usually with a variation rate for mileage and/or time.
3.2.3 The Comhairle then bears the risk that the transport demand is not aligned to supply, but the operator shares some of the commercial risk. It is similar in nature to the current in-house transport delivery in that it is for the Comhairle to maximise use of the resource through better planning and must seek to optimise use of the resources available, except with the risk of industry cost pressure being shared with the contractor while using their potentially superior operational delivery expertise and lower cost base.
3.2.4 This approach could be used within a Framework, provided the potential for this is notified in the Invitation to Tender. There is some potential for application in CnES - this will become clearer when the rescheduling exercise has been completed.
3.3 Call-off Contracts
3.3.1 This will be required where is a need to respond to additional transport demand at short notice, especially for solo or low occupancy transport for
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 21
children’s social care, additional support needs and adult social care transport or when a contractor ceases trading at short notice.
3.3.2 We recognise that this is out of scope for this immediate exercise, but it is still a requirement that needs to be procured, which means developing a contract structure which provides suitable levels of flexibility to mobilise at short notice, while continuing to demonstrate probity, cost-effectiveness and quality of service.
3.3.3 Call-off contracts are suitable for these needs as they allow for short notice journeys to be mobilised at previously agreed rates while allowing operator flexibility. There is always a need to continue to demonstrate cost effectiveness, as there is the potential for call-off contractors to attempt to renegotiate or decline the request to undertake the journey if they do not possess sufficient capacity to deliver when requested.
3.4 Operation Only Contracts
3.4.1 Operation only contracts occur when the Comhairle acquires one or more vehicles and makes these available to tenderers on an operation-only basis.
3.4.2 This approach may be useful where:
The Comhairle has easy access to capital. This would then result in reduced revenue expenditure on the contract. The utility may depend upon the relative cost of capital to the Comhairle and to the operator and the diversion of this capital from more effective use elsewhere;
The Comhairle wants to assist smaller operators to develop – particularly to move from private hire operation into local bus operation;
The Comhairle wants a particular specification of vehicles to be deployed e.g. all-electric;
The Comhairle already owns the vehicle resource.
3.4.3 There could be a significant price differential between a vehicle purchase by the Comhairle and leasing by the operator. The operator is unlikely to purchase a new vehicle if wholly dependent on a fixed-term contract of, say, five years and is more likely to lease a vehicle over a five year period. At the end of the contract the operator has no guaranteed use for the vehicle. Extensions of the agreed lease period can also be expensive.
3.4.4 The Comhairle could have easy and relatively cheap access to capital to finance a new vehicle and, in addition, can simply transfer the vehicle to the new contractor. Operation-only could well be a way forward for the introduction of PSVAR compliant vehicles on the CnES network.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 22
3.5 Minimum Subsidy (Net Cost) versus Minimum Cost (Gross Cost)
3.5.1 CnES has adopted a minimum subsidy approach when tendering for public bus service contracts. The Comhairle pays a fixed contract price and the operator retains all the revenue from the service (including concessionary fares) and the commercial risk. The net cost to the authority is therefore fixed (other than through agreed price change mechanisms) and depends on the operator’s estimate of the shortfall of revenue against operating costs. However, given that the Comhairle designs all the services and sets the maximum fares, operators have, in practice, little freedom to undertake route development and associated marketing.
3.5.2 An alternative approach is the minimum cost model where the Comhairle pays the operator a fixed contract rate (again subject to agreed price change mechanisms) based on the gross cost of the operation but then receives all the revenue from the service. The net contract cost is therefore variable and the authority carries the commercial risk.
3.5.3 There is a belief within CnES that some operators are not currently factoring in sufficient or indeed any fare income into their bids and so we would suggest that for all public bus services tenderers are invited to submit bids both on the basis of the contractor taking the revenue risk (minimum subsidy) and the Comhairle taking the revenue risk (minimum cost). Obviously this distinction does not apply to ‘closed door’ school contracts.
3.5.4 It should be noted that if the ‘minimum cost’ model is adopted the Comhairle will need to monitor and market the services to ensure that fares are being collected and fare revenue maximised. On the up-side it would enable the Comhairle to undertake more active marketing, particularly through focused pricing offers on an area basis. There would also be no argument over through tickets and whose revenue was whose.
3.5.5 Transport Scotland’s Concessionary Fares and Bus Service Operators’ Grant arrangements specify that claims MUST be filed by the operator holding the service registration. Under a minimum cost scenario, CnES would need to ensure that these submissions are appropriately lodged and the income diverted to it, although it is feasible or indeed desirable for CnES to act as agent in preparing claims. Shetland Islands Council tenders its services on a gross-cost basis and carries out all of the back-office functions including preparation of concessionary claims by the operators.
3.5.6 We understand that the Comhairle has decided to opt for net cost contracts, not wishing to be involved in revenue handling, leaving revenue risk with the operators. There is a Scottish distinction here in that concessionary revenue must be claimed by the operator under the terms of the Transport Scotland scheme. In England, the Travel Concession Authority simply reimburses itself or foregoes the reimbursement process. Within a gross-cost scenario, the
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 23
Comhairle would not only need to ensure that claims were submitted but that the appropriate funds were then transferred.
3.6 Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations - TUPE
3.6.1 A potential change of contractors, including a transfer to or from the Comhairle’s in-house operation, brings TUPE into consideration. Whilst a completely new or radically different service might be exempt from TUPE (e.g. requiring new skills or a different licence) in most cases this exemption will not apply.
3.6.2 In 2006, the Scottish Government provided detailed statutory guidance on this issue and this still applies4. Contractors need to be warned in advance that TUPE may apply and should be asked to provide Comhairle with the necessary information about staff terms and conditions in advance of the contract expiry to enable it to comply with its duties. A requirement to provide this information in a timely manner should be contained in the relevant conditions of contract. This personal information must be treated confidentially within the Comhairle.
3.7 The Need to Register a School Service
3.7.1 The need to register a school bus as a local service hinges on the concepts of operating for hire and reward, which brings in the concept of separate fares. The Driver & Vehicle Services Agency (DVSA) definition of hire or reward (with our emphasis in bold) is based on s1(5) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981:
“is any payment in cash or kind which gives a person the right to be carried, regardless of whether or not that right is exercised. It is also regardless of whether or not a profit is made. The payment may be made to the operator, the driver or any agent or representative acting on behalf of the operator. The payment may be made by the passenger, or on the passenger’s behalf. It may be (a) a direct payment (e.g. a fare) or (b) an indirect payment (this could be an exchange for services such as a membership subscription to a club, payment for a bed in a hotel, school fees or payment for concert tickets where travel is included; the payment does not have to be money and the right to travel does not need to be taken up).”5
3.7.2 Transport Scotland’s Form PSV353A gives guidance on the need for registration of local bus services. It exempts services which, although they collect fares either directly or indirectly, satisfy four conditions:
4 https://www.gov.scot/publications/statutory-guidance-local-authorities-contracting/pages/0/ 5 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194259/PSV_Operator_Licensing_Gui de.pdf
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 24
“schools and works services may be local services if any of the users pays a separate fare (especially if passengers pay different amounts depending on how far they travel). But this type of service is not a local service and does not have to be registered if all of the following conditions apply:
Someone other than the operator or his agent is responsible for arranging the journey and for bringing the passengers together;
The journey is not advertised beforehand to the general public;
All passengers travel to or from the same place (e.g. a school or factory); and
Passengers pay the same fare no matter how far they travel.”6
3.7.3 It is clear, therefore, that any school service which carries non-entitled pupils who pay either graduated fares collected on the bus or a monthly ‘season ticket’ bought from the Comhairle at a range of prices dependent on distance is operating for hire and reward and therefore should operate as a local service registered with the Traffic Commissioner. Note that journeys would fail the above test if either they appeared in the Comhairle’s timetable or, perhaps more importantly, they served more than one school. ‘Closed door’ operations carrying only entitled children have no such restrictions provided, of course, that none of the passengers pays.
3.8 PSVAR Definitions
3.8.1 The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR) defines which categories of service must be compliant with the regulations and introduces a new concept – that of the ‘scheduled service’ as distinct from a ‘local bus service’ (again with our emphasis in bold):
“Application
3.—(1) These Regulations apply to public service vehicles of the types described respectively in paragraphs (2) to (7) (a “regulated public service vehicle”) in the manner and to the extent set out in this Part.
(9) In paragraphs (2) to (7)—
references to a vehicle being “used” or “in use” means the regulated public service vehicle is being used to provide either a local service or a scheduled service.
6 Transport Scotland Form PSV353A para 4
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 25
Interpretation
2.—(1) In these Regulations—
“local service” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985(5);
“scheduled service” means a service, using one or more public service vehicles, for the carriage of passengers at separate fares —
a) along specified routes,
b) at specified times, and
c) with passengers being taken up and set down at pre-determined stopping points, but does not include a tour service;
“tour service” means a service where a public service vehicle is used for or in conjunction with the carriage of passengers to a particular location, or particular locations, and back to their point of departure;
3.8.2 School contracts which carry fare-paying pupils satisfy all four criteria specified in PSVAR, therefore will automatically fall within the definition of ‘scheduled service’ and PSVAR will apply to all vehicles with a capacity of 22 or over from 1 January 2020. Note that a ‘scheduled service’ requires the carriage of passengers at separate fares. Closed door contracts carrying only entitled pupils fall outside this category for this reason and are therefore exempt from PSVAR.
3.8.3 The important conclusion here is that any service using larger vegicles which carries non-entitled farepaying children at varying fares MUST comply with PSVAR.
3.9 Control of Pass Issue
3.9.1 There is an important issue of control here. As Education & Children’s Services issue the passes to non-entitled children while Communities contract the buses, it is quite conceivable that some passes could be sold for travel on a previously ‘closed door’ contract which then alters its status unknown to the contracting department. This needs to be a ‘tighter’ arrangement and, whatever future option for non-entitled children is followed, a close watch needs to be kept.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 26
3.10 Implications for the Comhairle
3.10.1 CnES has three options for school transport provision:
a) Closed Door Contract – carrying only pupils who are transported free of charge. These do not need to be registered, nor do they need to comply with PSVAR.
b) Closed Door Contract with Farepaying Pupils - These do not need to be registered, nor do they need to comply with PSVAR. But ALL pupils must be carried to the same school or college; farepayers must all be charged the same amount; the operator must take no part in selling the tickets and the journey must NOT be advertised in a public timetable.
c) Standard School Contract with Farepaying Pupils – The Comhairle is free to charge pupils as it wishes and to include other members of the general public and may pick up and set down at any timetabled point. But it MUST be registered as a local bus service, operate to a set route and timetable7 and therefore must also comply with PSVAR.
3.10.2 Note that while services under a) and b) can be amended as and when needed, services under c) are subject to the normal process for registration changes.
3.10.3 Failure to comply with the above lies with the operator, even if it is simply following the contract specification. There does not yet appear to have been any prosecution for failure to comply with PSVAR but prosecutions and Traffic Commissioner’s inquiries have been commonplace – particularly in Scotland - for running unregistered services and failure to comply with a service registration. It would be very unwise of the Comhairle, however, to specify an operation in a contract which fell outside the law.
3.11 The Future of Bus na Comhairle
3.11.1 The Comhairle already has a passenger fleet operation used primarily to provide the two elements of service W5. In theory, it would be possible to expand this to provide additional local bus and mainstream home to school services if tendered or negotiated prices are considered to be unreasonably high or there are no bids at all.
3.11.2 The decision on whether to consider this option as a practical solution to the lack of competition hinges on benchmarking the current and possibly expanded fleet operating costs, including all corporate overheads, against the cost of securing the service by competitive tender and the limitations of CnES’ depot accommodation, which is shared with other council vehicles.
7 Service registrations do allow an element of deviation from the route on demand if this is specified in the service registration.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 27
3.11.3 One option would be for the Comhairle to consider a modest expansion in the fleet size and then allocate those vehicles to contracts where bids have come in at ‘unreasonably’ high prices. We understand that this may create issues around depot capacity, although this presupposes that an expanded fleet would be housed at the current location.
3.12 Lotting Options for Lewis and Harris
3.12.1 There are three alternative ways in which CnES could seek to group the contracts for the 2019 tender process. These are:
As one large contract;
Medium or small sized geographical groupings or
Individual vehicle workings.
3.12.2 These have led in to the method of tendering decided on by CnES and discussed in section 6.
3.13 One Contract
3.13.1 It may be possible that an operator would be willing to take on the whole network as one contract with relevant services sub-contracted to other operators. The positives are:
CnES would only have to deal with one operator;
Any issues regarding performance of sub-contractors are for the main contractor and not CnES to deal with; and
There would be no issues regarding inter-acceptance of ticketing.
Although this factor is within CnES’ ‘gift’ within contract specification.
3.13.2 There are of course a number of potential downsides to this approach which are:
The risk of contract failure created by collapse of the single contractor, especially if it has underestimated the size of the job or costs;
Leading to the need for a ‘plan B’ to institute in an emergency;
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 28
The difficulty of a single contractor mobilising sufficient (60-70) vehicles and drivers etc. within the lead time;
The probable closure of the CnES Bus na Comhairle operation, incurring redundancy cost and ongoing pension liabilities;
At the same time, operators losing work have little incentive to maintain services up to the transfer date, particularly if staff leave or ‘defect’ to the new operator;
The risk that operators unwilling or not selected for subcontracting would close down as a result and hence reduce competition for subsequent contracts; and
Potential legal challenge to the award, especially if a consortium of operators won the contract to the exclusion of others, which could be deemed anti-competitive.
3.14 Geographical Contracts
3.14.1 The public bus network on Lewis and Harris has certain obvious geographical groupings which can vary in size depending how large a contract CnES wishes to tender. Given the lack of cross Tarbert journeys on the W10 it would be easy to split this service in two with one contract covering the Stornoway journeys (W10N) and the other covering Leverburgh journeys (W10H), although this idea had little support from operators8. Table 5 sets out the service groups for large contracts and Table 6 for smaller contracts.
3.14.2 The main advantages of the larger geographical lots are:
Feeder and main services are operated by the same operator thus there is no revenue or through ticketing issue; and
Changes to timetables may allow greater interworking of services to save vehicles.
3.14.3 Closed door school contracts can be set out in a similar manner. The main issue to watch is that these services do not (yet) require PSVAR compliant vehicles, however if the vehicle then goes onto work a public service then it must be compliant. Note that there is no need to parcel together school and public services along the same corridor in the same lot. There may be advantages in keeping them separate as they suit operators with different business models. Note that services W6 and W7 are excluded from Table 6 as these could, as currently, have journeys split between different contracts.
8 See section 8.4
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 29
Table 5: Possible Public Service Lotting – Large
Areas Stornoway Ness Westside Eastside Harris Services W5, W6 & W1 & W1A W2, W2A, W8, W8A, W9, W10H, W11, W7 W3 & W4 W9A, W10N, W12, W13, W10B W14 & W15
Table 6: Possible Public Service Lotting – Small
Areas Stornoway Ness Westside South West Eastside Harris Harris North South Services W5 W1 & W1A W2 & W2A W3 & W4 W8, W8A, W10N, W10H, W9, W9A & W11, W12 W13 & W10B & W14 W15
3.15 Vehicle Workings
3.15.1 At the other end of the spectrum every vehicle working could be regarded as a single contract. The key benefit of this approach is that each vehicle could cover a number of services thus increasing efficiency rather than sitting unproductively in Stornoway or Tarbert for an hour or so between journeys if vehicles are deployed solely on one service.
3.15.2 The main downside to this approach is that a key service may be provided by a number of different operators throughout the day, which could create issues
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 30
both with having drivers with sufficient route knowledge to undertake the work and the acceptance of a return and other tickets issued by other operators. The latter can, of course, be overcome by including ticket acceptance conditions within the terms of contracts.
3.15.3 An additional disadvantage is that, without careful planning, it may increase the proportion of vehicle workings which require large enough vehicles to cope with school journeys, thus increasing costs.
3.16 Vehicle Specifications
3.16.1 In any area where there is still an amount of service operation by vehicles which do not comply with PSVAR there will be opinions expressed that roads and the terrain are not suitable for low-floor buses. Certainly this was the case in Shetland and in Cornwall, Western Greyhound often expressed this opinion. However, low floor buses now operate successfully in both areas. The only route in Shetland exempted now is the ‘Overland’ service which has clearance issues driving onto and off a ferry and uses a lift-equipped small coach.
3.16.2 However, there remains the issue of the appropriateness of low floor buses with standard seating for some of the journey lengths in Harris and Lewis. This is an issue also faced and not yet successfully resolved, by the Welsh Government on its Traws Cymru network.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 31
3.17 Demand Responsive Travel Arrangements
3.17.1 There is currently a variety of time limits for booking demand responsive services. These vary between trips on certain routes which may create some level of confusion to potential passengers. A standard time limit should be set even if this is “services should be booked no later than three hours before hand”. Introducing an app would allow bookings to be made closer to departure time through this method but not via phone.
3.17.2 The reliance on telephone booking is perhaps technologically outdated with online booking and apps now fairly common in the UK mainland taxi trade and for some demand-responsive bus services. The online booking facility at least should be relatively easy and inexpensive to establish. Given the nature of the clientele of DRT services, however, with a tendency to older users, it is important to retain a system that does not exclude a significant cohort of potential users.
3.17.3 The main issue is for CnES to make sure that it purchases the correct system. A recent client of TAS had purchased the Trapeze booking system which also theoretically allows scheduling of a DRT service but the system was seen as unreliable and difficult to use, while another had returned to a manual wallchart accompanied by ‘Post-It’ notes!
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 32
3.18 Information to Support Contracts
3.18.1 As the Comhairle has decided that the operators will retain revenue risk under the new contracts, we feel that supply of some sort of patronage and revenue figures from the existing operations would:
a) Ensure that the Comhairle obtains best value for money;
b) Allow the operators to make more accurate bids and
c) Would remove any knowledge advantage that the incumbent operator would otherwise have.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 33
4Case Studies for Tendering 4
4.1 Case Studies
4.1.1 This section outlines a number of different ways in which contracts have been let and their outcomes.
4.2 Brockenhurst College
4.2.1 Brockenhurst College is a large tertiary education establishment covering large swathes of Hampshire and Dorset. Go South Coast was commissioned in April 2018 to provide new services for the college through its existing brands (morebus, Salisbury Reds and Bluestar).
4.2.2 For an initial 27 months Go South Coast provides a number of dedicated services for College students and gives them access to a wider bus network. As well as conventional services it provides 28 special services to and from Brockenhurst College. These services span a 20 mile radius and operate outside traditional college times giving students the opportunity to use the service for leisure activities or for late starts and early finishes. There is an added bonus for the wider community as the services are available to members of the public.
4.2.3 Previously the contract was operated by FirstGroup with Yellow Buses as its sub-contractor. Between them they operated 14 home to college routes in an area between Bournemouth and Salisbury. The contract was intended to last three years with an opportunity to extend it for a further two years, but First handed the contract back after March 2018. The total value of the contract was £3,747,825, divided equally between First and Yellow Bus.
Summary
4.2.4 Letting all services to the college as one big contract can have its advantages, however if the contractor has made errors in its pricing it can lead to complications and early termination, as happened here. Brockenhurst College is fortunate to have three large operators in its area and thus was able to easily replace one with another.
4.3 Runshaw College
4.3.1 Runshaw College in Leyland, Lancashire is similar to Brockenhurst in that it has a wide catchment area across Lancashire and the northern part of Greater Manchester. In 2014 Runshaw College retendered the routes for an initial period of two years with (exercised) options of extensions dependent on performance. The contract is split over eight lots, where each lot represents a different area.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Case Studies for Tendering ▪ 35
4.3.2 Large independent operators Redline of Penwortham and Tyrer’s of Adlington, both of which specialise in school transport, run its transport services. There are 32 routes operating in different directions as far as twenty miles from the college with fixed morning arrival and afternoon departure times.
4.3.3 Redline and Tyrer’s each has specific routes generally with a north/south split. Currently Tyrer’s operates 23 of the routes with Redline providing the remaining nine routes. There is a quality aspect to the contract which does not focus on cheapest price and poor quality vehicles. The contract is succinct and specific in what it requires from a potential operator, specifying a set number of seats plus, for example:
“Transportation of students to and from Runshaw College, along 5 routes. To arrive at approximately 8.45 am and depart Runshaw College at approximately 16.15 pm. [sic] (detailed timings and route stops will be provided in our Invitation to Tender) Route - AM (PM reverse of inward route):”
Summary
4.3.4 The use of geographically based lots allows for some level of value for money as the contracted operator should not be incurring excessive dead mileage to operate the relevant services.
4.4 Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
4.4.1 Transport for Greater Manchester covers a vast area and spends the most of any English PTE on supported bus services. Its current contracts comprise the following:
263 public bus services,
Split into multiple contracts covering all-day, early morning, evenings and Sunday contracts or for a single journey;
349 ‘conventional’ school services;
Three MetroShuttle networks (Manchester, Bolton and Stockport); and
93 Yellow School Buses.
4.4.2 TfGM provides the vehicles for the MetroShuttle networks, all Yellow School Bus routes and some of the all-day public services. These vehicles are a mixture of hybrid and electric buses, having been purchased with support from various government challenge funds. As such, TfGM-owned vehicles swap between operators regularly.
4.4.3 The way in which the contracts are awarded means that on a number of routes there are multiple operators covering different time periods. Figure D shows service 245 where one journey in one direction only on a Saturday morning is
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Case Studies for Tendering ▪ 36
run by one operator, the daytime commercial service by another and evening tendered journeys by a third.
4.4.4 There are also implications for operators in requiring drivers to learn a route for an occasional journey. In addition, the lack of a review process so that journeys which were subsidised twenty years ago are still subsidised while new gaps have appeared is illustrated by the three hour gap in departures from Stretford on Saturdays.
Figure D: Greater Manchester Service 245
Summary
4.4.5 TfGM tenders services in a variety of ways. By providing vehicles for various services it can ensure that the desired quality is met. However the tendering of different parts of a single service in different contracts can lead to confusion for passengers, especially when it comes to validity of multi-journey tickets. TfGM has never habitually used de-minimis provisions to award small contracts to the main incumbent operator.
4.5 Shetland
4.5.1 Shetland, like CnES, has no commercial bus services. Its services have traditionally been supplied by a multiplicity of small family-owned operators using small depot premises on villages outside the capital, Lerwick. By and large, each operator has stuck to its own corridor with financial support from the Council.
4.5.2 The Council ran some operations itself with its own drivers and vehicles and in others owned the vehicles which were loaned to the operators. The Council,
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Case Studies for Tendering ▪ 37
however, will reject any bid it considers to be excessive and will retender or self-operate and did so in 2014. The farescale is specified by Shetland Islands Council and the low level of this, ironically, is one of the main hindrances to any commercial operation.
4.5.3 School services are, in general, tendered at the same time as the main services and, since statutory rules apply, these involve a range of vehicle types from full size buses to Land Rovers, saloon cars and ferries.
4.5.4 A common aspect between public and school services is the use of feeders to main corridors. A number of hubs with waiting shelters has been built and the links to more remote settlements run on a mix of timetabled, ‘as required’ and DRT operation.
4.5.5 Due to the area covered, secondary school pupils from some outlying areas board out in Lerwick during the week and this leads to additional Friday and Sunday evening school buses. Another Shetland peculiarity is the provision of some ‘winter months’ only school buses which are provided on safety grounds for pupils who would otherwise be forced to walk to and from school in the dark.
4.5.6 The bus business in Shetland is boosted by the need for transport for oil workers. The level of this fluctuates in line with the oil supply business. Shetland’s service bus fleet is fully accessible and modern. There is only one facility for ‘heavy maintenance’ of buses and HGVs on Shetland and major work has to be carried out by sending buses by ferry to Aberdeen. There is no refurbishment facility so vehicles tend to be leased for a period of up to six or seven years then exchanged for newer ones.
4.5.7 Only one ‘mainstream’ bus contract is not operated by low floor buses – the ‘Overland’ service 24 which includes two ferry crossings with limited clearance. This employs a lift-equipped midicoach.
Summary
4.5.8 Shetland’s approach is very similar to that currently employed by CnES with regard to how services are tendered. This has led to some oddities including evening journeys being run by a different operator to the daytime and services 21 and 23 which share a common corridor being operated by two different companies.
4.5.9 However, Shetland has a clear and defined division of responsibility for scholars’ season tickets. These are purchased from the Environment and Transportation Department by the Education Department as its customer.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Case Studies for Tendering ▪ 38
4.6 Jersey
4.6.1 Historically, privately-owned Jersey Motor Transport (JMT) had a monopoly of licences to run bus services on the island, supported by contracts to run school buses on behalf of the States of Jersey. There was (and is) a small number of coach operators on Jersey too and these also provided some school contracts. These operators cannily linked coach day excursions and school runs by leaving coach parties ‘at leisure’ in a particular place between 3pm and 4pm!
4.6.2 The need for change followed several years of JMT failing to make a profit and asking the States for ever-increasing amounts of subsidy, but what this subsidy was actually buying and what value it brought to the States was unknown.
4.6.3 Although a small private company, JMT had generous wage levels, conditions and pension provision and there was some history of militancy. Over half of JMT’s staff were off-islanders with Northern England and Madeira – with which Jersey has historic links - the main sources of staff.
4.6.4 The States decided to put the entire bus network out to tender as one contract, accompanied by a number of school contract packages. It should be noted that Jersey has no legislation which requires the provision of school transport at all.
4.6.5 The States specified the timetable to be run, decided to take the revenue risk itself and specified the provision of fully accessible vehicles on main services conforming to the island’s maximum dimensions for vehicles. It also specified that JMT employees should transfer on their wage rates and conditions at the time of the transfer.
4.6.6 French transport operator Connex won the first franchise in 2002. It adopted the mainland Europe principle of following the contract specification to the letter. The new, accessible vehicles had 29 seats, replacing 40 and 45 seaters in the JMT fleet. This was not the only capacity issue as JMT practice had been to operate low frequencies but with heavy duplication. There was no incentive for Connex to duplicate as it then incurred the cost but any additional revenue went to the States.
4.6.7 Connex also brought in its own management who lacked the local knowledge of the network. The final problem for Connex to handle was that a few weeks before the handover, JMT awarded its employees a significant pay rise, which under the terms of the contract it had no option other than to continue but which was, of course, unbudgeted.
4.6.8 Connex had an archaic system of ticketing for school buses. Parents bought books of tear-off vouchers from The States which were used one per journey. The buses ran as ‘closed door’ contracts without ticket machines so these
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Case Studies for Tendering ▪ 39
vouchers were the only way of travelling, but, as there was no revenue risk to Connex, policing of this was poor.
The Present Situation
4.6.9 For its second franchise, States of Jersey reduced the number of contracts to two, the local bus services and the school buses. HCT, a not-for-profit group based in London, won both contracts. There is a small amount of overlap between the two. The franchisee takes most of the revenue risk. The franchise is treated more like a partnership arrangement which results in a lot of flexibility and significantly reduces the need for monitoring by the States.
4.6.10 The States owns a large modern depot with extensive workshop facilities on the docks in St Helier which is leased as part of the franchise. It is rare that any vehicle has to return to the UK for remedial work.
4.6.11 The issue of vehicle size and capacity remains, which has resulted in elderly step-entrance vehicles with a higher number of seats being retained for school work. The entire public bus service fleet was renewed at the start of the contract, including the introduction of double deck buses. The downside of this, of course, is that the entire fleet is ageing at the same rate.
4.6.12 All schoolchildren on Jersey pay a fare. Initially, the 75p child fare was only available if purchased in multiple on a smartcard. Following parental pressure, pupils also now have the option of paying a £1 cash fare per journey. This is now used by a significant proportion of pupils and has grown ridership significantly.
4.6.13 HCT suffered a significant strike in its early days over wage rates and conditions, but the operator was largely successful in its attempt to get wages back to a market level. The current franchise costs £4.35m including concessionary and school fares. Neighbouring Guernsey pays HCT £4.4m for the operation of its much smaller island network on a similar basis.
Summary
4.6.14 Jersey is a good example of both the positives and negatives of tendering all bus services as one contract. Whilst the current incumbent HCT has been proactive in its operation and engagement with The States, predecessor Connex was unpopular with passengers and would not operate anything outside its contract specification.
4.7 Summary
4.7.1 The examples above show more than anything that there is a ‘middle way’ in contract award, between too large and too small:
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Case Studies for Tendering ▪ 40
In the absence of alternative large operators Brockenhurst College would have been in serious difficulty when its contractor surrendered the contract for all of its college transport;
Transport for Greater Manchester’s insistence on tendering journeys in individual small blocks poses real issues of consistency and familiarity with the service;
Jersey has seen both sides of a ‘whole island’ contract. Its first contractor was inflexible and stuck to the letter of the contract, which was inadequately specified. Its second contractor favours partnership working to the benefit of both contracting authority and operator.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Case Studies for Tendering ▪ 41
5Fares and Ticketing Strategy 5
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 This section looks at fares in CnES and compares them to other similar areas. We then look at options for changes to fares and possible ticketing developments.
5.2 Fares Basis
5.2.1 In the past the normal practice has been to have fare increases at two-yearly intervals, at which time individual fares would increase in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). However the last fare increase saw the price of single tickets rise by 15%, day returns by 10% and the cost of ten journey tickets held at their existing level. Note that even after this 15% rise CnES fares are still some way below market level (see 5.3).
5.2.2 In a bid to widen their appeal a variant of the ten journey ticket was introduced with its validity extended from one week to two. This has had no impact upon their popularity and the uptake of these tickets remains very low – they make up only 0.5% of all ticket records – and the child variants are especially little used (0.01% of all ticket records). Use of the weekly format ticket is concentrated upon services W1 (59.2%) and W2 (32.0%) whilst use of the two weekly format ticket is focussed upon service W5 (52.5%).
5.2.3 Taking 2010 as a base we have compared the headline CPI figure with the Retail Prices Index (RPI)9, the CPI rates for transport and road passenger transport10 and the increases in the multipliers applied by CnES to non- domestic properties11. The results are contained in Table 7 and it should be pointed out that a property revaluation resulted in the rateable value multipliers falling in 2017, whilst other indicators continued to rise. In each year the indicator with the greatest increase is shaded in red and that with the lowest increase in green.
5.2.4 It is notable that in three of the six years for which complete comparisons are available the greatest increase is in the multiplier for large properties. Fare increases calculated at the headline CPI rate have failed to match the increases in road passenger transport index in five of the seven years analysed.
9 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/czbh/mm23 10 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/datasets/consumerpriceinflation 11 https://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/business/non-domestic-rates-business-rates/
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Fares and Ticketing Strategy ▪ 43
Table 7: Comparison of Price Increase Indices
CnES Non-domestic Rates RPI CPI Road Small Large Passenger Year Property Property Overall Transport Transport 2018 3.0% 2.8% 4.0% 2.7% 2017 -3.7% -3.5% 0.9% 2.6% 4.3% 8.6% 2016 0.8% 3.4% 1.9% 1.0% 0.5% 3.0% 2015 1.9% 2.3% 1.9% 0.4% -2.1% 2.2% 2014 1.9% 2.3% 2.8% 1.5% 0.3% 1.5% 2013 2.7% 2.8% 3.6% 2.3% 0.9% 2.3% 2012 5.6% 5.8% 5.2% 2.6% 2.4% 4.4% 2011 4.7% 4.6% 4.9% 3.8% 7.9% 5.3%
5.3 Fares Comparisons
5.3.1 There was already a perception that the fares charged on CnES secured services are significantly below those of comparable operations and in order to test this theory we have compared the current cash fares to those charged in other areas where the network is entirely secured or there has been no deregulation. Our chosen comparators are Shetland, Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man and Northern Ireland (Ulsterbus) outside the Belfast metropolitan area.
5.3.2 Ulsterbus is a division of state owned transport operator Translink and is responsible for local bus services outside the Belfast metropolitan area, the network comprises a mixture of interurban services, small town networks and rural services. Under contract, Ulsterbus is also responsible for the provision of school transport across the province outside Belfast. About 50% of income comes from fare revenue.
5.3.3 Whereas the tip of Lewis to the foot of Harris covers a distance of around sixty miles, Jersey and Guernsey are geographically small (the former measuring nine miles by five miles and the latter nine miles by three miles) and as a result operate a flat fare system, in which the cost of travel does not vary with the distance travelled. The Isle of Man is larger (32 miles by 14 miles) and has a conventional graduated farescale, but the longest journey that can be made by bus (Douglas to Ramsey via Peel) is 27.2 miles.
5.3.4 Return fares are not available on Shetland, Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man. The multi-journey ticketing options also differ – Shetland does not offer such tickets, Jersey and Guernsey have weekly unlimited travel tickets and the Isle of Man has both 12 journey tickets and unlimited travel tickets valid for five or seven days. In all the areas studied children (ages 5 to 16) are charged half the adult fare with other special arrangements for school travel.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Fares and Ticketing Strategy ▪ 44
5.4 Single and Return Fares
5.4.1 The adult single fare comparison is shown in Table 8 and illustrated in Figure E. Setting aside the £1 flat fare charged on Guernsey the CnES fare scale has the lowest charge for journeys of up to six miles in length and for journeys of between six and 16 miles is broadly the same as Shetland. Shetland also has a smartcard which offers a discount on single fares. From that point onwards Shetland fares are lower than in the CnES area. The fares on Jersey and the Isle of Man and in the rural parts of Northern Ireland are above the CnES level – in the case of Ulsterbus substantially so, with some being more than double the equivalent CnES fare.
Table 8: Adult Cash Single Fare Comparison
Journey Length (miles) CnES Shetland Jersey Guernsey Isle of Man Ulsterbus 1 £0.90 £1.40 £2.20 £1.00 £1.10 £1.70 2 £1.00 £1.40 £2.20 £1.00 £1.10 £2.00 3 £1.10 £1.40 £2.20 £1.00 £1.30 £2.00 4 £1.20 £1.40 £2.20 £1.00 £1.30 £2.40 5 £1.40 £1.60 £2.20 £1.00 £1.90 £2.80 6 £1.50 £1.60 £2.20 £1.00 £1.90 £3.10 8 £1.80 £1.80 £2.20 £1.00 £2.70 £3.10 10 £1.90 £1.80 £2.20 £1.00 £2.70 £3.60 12 £2.10 £2.00 £2.70 £4.00 14 £2.30 £2.30 £3.10 £4.60 16 £2.50 £2.30 £3.10 £5.40 19 £2.70 £2.30 £3.40 £6.20 22 £3.20 £2.90 £3.40 £6.20 25 £3.40 £2.90 £3.40 £6.90 28 £3.70 £3.20 £3.40 £8.20 32 £4.10 £3.20 £8.20 36 £4.50 £3.50 £9.50 40 £4.80 £3.80 £9.50 44 £5.30 £3.80 £9.50 48 £5.70 £3.80 £11.00 52 £6.20 £4.40 £11.00 56 £6.70 £4.40 £11.00 > 56 £6.80 £4.40 £12.50
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Fares and Ticketing Strategy ▪ 45
Figure E: Adult Cash Single Fare Comparison
CnES Shetland Jersey Guernsey Isle of Man Ulsterbus £14.00
£12.00
£10.00 Fare £8.00
£6.00
£4.00
£2.00
£0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 19 22 25 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 > 56.1 Journey Length (miles)
5.4.2 Return fares are offered only on the CnES network and on Ulsterbus services and a comparison of the two is contained in Table 9 and illustrated in Figure F. Elsewhere passengers can purchase day tickets that allow unlimited travel (Guernsey £4.50, Isle of Man £7.00, Jersey £8.00). On Shetland single fares for longer distance journeys are held at a low level so that the purchase of two single fares has a similar cost to that of a return on the CnES network.
5.4.3 Ulsterbus follows the practice of many larger operators by not offering return fares for short distance journeys. In practice the saving resulting from the purchase of a return ticket (20p for a three mile journey on the CnES network) is, in many cases, insufficient incentive especially where services are not frequent and there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining a lift for the homeward journey.
5.4.4 As would be expected from the comparison of cash adult single fares (above) the cost of cash adult return fares on Ulsterbus services is generally more than double the level on the CnES network.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Fares and Ticketing Strategy ▪ 46
Table 9: Adult Cash Return Fare Comparison
Journey Length (miles) CnES Ulsterbus 1 £1.50 No return fare 2 £1.80 No return fare 3 £2.00 No return fare 4 £2.10 £4.30 5 £2.50 £5.00 6 £2.60 £5.60 8 £2.80 £5.60 10 £3.00 £6.50 12 £3.40 £7.20 14 £3.80 £8.30 16 £4.10 £9.70 19 £4.50 £11.00 22 £5.40 £11.00 25 £5.70 £12.50 28 £5.80 £15.00 32 £6.30 £15.00 36 £6.80 £17.00 40 £7.50 £17.00 44 £8.20 £17.00 48 £8.70 £19.00 52 £9.30 £19.00 56 £10.30 £19.00 > 56.1 £10.50 £19.00
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Fares and Ticketing Strategy ▪ 47
Figure F: Adult Cash Return Fare Comparison
CnES Ulsterbus
£20.00
£18.00
£16.00
£14.00 Fare £12.00
£10.00
£8.00
£6.00
£4.00
£2.00
£0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 19 22 25 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 > Journey Length (Miles) 56.1
5.5 Multi Journey Tickets
5.5.1 Multi-journey tickets (weekly, ten or twelve journey) are available on all the comparator networks except Shetland. However there is no consistency in the products with Jersey and Guernsey having weekly unlimited travel tickets and the Isle of Man having both weekly tickets and a 12 journey ticket. Thus only the Ulsterbus prices represent a direct like-for-like comparison and once more they are in the region of double those on CnES services. The results are shown in Table 10 and illustrated in Figure G. Ulsterbus appears to stand out above the other comparators but in truth its fares are reasonably close to market levels applying across most of mainland Scotland.
5.5.2 It should be pointed out that CnES is unique in placing such a short period of validity on ten-journey tickets. This has its origins in Scottish Bus Group practice. In most other areas ten or twelve journey tickets are valid for up to six months or longer. It is clear that fares on the CnES network are generally lower than on the comparator operations and in some instances the disparity is substantial.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Fares and Ticketing Strategy ▪ 48
Table 10: Adult Multi-journey Ticket Price Comparison
Journey Length (miles) CnES Jersey Guernsey Isle of Man Ulsterbus 1 £6.20 £18.00 £16.00 £11.00 £12.00 2 £7.00 £18.00 £16.00 £11.00 £14.50 3 £7.70 £18.00 £16.00 £12.50 £14.50 4 £8.60 £18.00 £16.00 £12.50 £17.00 5 £10.10 £18.00 £16.00 £19.00 £20.00 6 £10.80 £18.00 £16.00 £19.00 £22.00 8 £11.60 £18.00 £16.00 £25.00 £22.00 10 £12.40 £18.00 £16.00 £25.00 £25.50 12 £13.90 £25.00 £28.00 14 £15.50 £30.00 £32.00 16 £17.00 £30.00 £32.00 19 £18.50 £33.00 £38.00 22 £21.60 £33.00 £38.00 25 £23.20 £33.00 £48.00 28 £23.80 £33.00 £57.50 32 £26.00 £57.50 36 £28.80 £66.50 40 £31.00 £66.50 44 £33.90 £66.50 48 £36.10 £75.00 52 £38.90 £75.00 56 £42.50 £75.00 > 56.1 £43.30 £85.50
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Fares and Ticketing Strategy ▪ 49
Figure G: Adult Multi-journey Ticket Price Comparison
CnES Jersey Guernsey Isle of Man Ulsterbus £90.00
£80.00
£70.00 Fare £60.00
£50.00
£40.00
£30.00
£20.00
£10.00
£0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 19 22 25 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 > Journey Length (miles) 56.1
5.6 Future Ticketing Development
5.6.1 There have been suggestions regarding moving towards the introduction of smartcards on the bus network. Smartcards are, of course, already in use on CnES services for concessionary travel, but purely as a recording medium. Responsibility for back-office processing and reimbursement calculations rests with Transport Scotland. Unless expansion of the use of smartcards is part of some other body’s initiative then their further use would incur set-up and ongoing back-office costs to CnES for questionable benefit, certainly if this ongoing cost is at the expense of funding for service provision.
5.6.2 Our experience is that smartcards are something favoured by politicians rather than passengers. Recent work by TAS with a Scottish operator which makes tickets available on smartcard, mobile ticket and paper versions has shown an overwhelming preference (around 80% of the market) for traditional ‘paper ticket on the bus’ versions.
5.6.3 Smartcards are of most use where day tickets and period tickets are the primary means of travel for fare payers, as would be the case in most urban Scottish markets, where they are used in sufficient volumes to justify the scheme costs and/or where there is a specific need to maintain an electronic footprint of journeys made to enable apportioning of revenue between operators. None of these situations applies to CnES.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Fares and Ticketing Strategy ▪ 50
5.6.4 A further use of smartcards promoted at around the turn of the twenty-first century was as an ‘e-purse’, where a card is topped-up with a set value and each ticket is deducted from the balance until there is a need to top up again. In our experience, this has been infrequently used when offered and has largely been superseded by the use of contactless bank cards.
5.6.5 Not all of CnES contractors have Ticketer ETMs and a further complication then would be finding a way for smartcards to be used on these services. This is an issue faced in Shetland too. The solution there is for feeder services to not collect any revenue, with the ticket purchased on the ‘main line’ part of the journey while Dial-a-Ride and shoppers services simply do not accept smartcards and keep manual records of concessionary trips.
5.6.6 It is possible to obtain hand-held Ticketer machines which can record smartcard uses. These are in use, for example, by the horse tram conductors on the Isle of Man. However, the cost of them to CnES set against likely revenue would be disproportionate.
5.6.7 Smartcards are becoming yesterday’s advance in ticketing rapidly. Other media are taking over which, in general, can be adopted far more quickly and at much lower cost than running a smartcard scheme. The ‘smart’ ticketing alternatives to a card based scheme comprise:
the use of ‘contactless’ bank cards;
the use of ‘m-ticketing’ through the storage of a ticket on a mobile phone app and
QR codes on paper tickets.
Ticketer ETMs are easily adaptable to read QR codes on paper and mobile tickets and to accept contactless payment.
5.6.8 The administrative costs involved in the various methods of selling tickets include:
Cash handling charges;
‘Back office’ staff costs for handling and issuing cards;
Web hosting;
Smartcard production costs;
Bank processing costs for contactless and credit or debit card payments including a typical interchange cost;
Fees for handling sales of m-tickets.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Fares and Ticketing Strategy ▪ 51
5.6.9 Smartcards are the most expensive medium as they attract four of the above costs.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Fares and Ticketing Strategy ▪ 52
6New Contracts - Service Delivery Options 6
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 CnES has considered various options for the new contracts. Rather than decide on a prescribed way forward, it intends to offer a number of different options for tender so that it can compare process and value for money of various options. These are described later in section 6.2.
6.2 CnES Selected Options
6.2.1 Following on from TAS’s suggested three service delivery option in the interim report, CnES has produced nine scenarios for the new network. These are:
a) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr before 0900 leave after 1700) and transport for entitled pupils only (School Plus);
b) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr before 0900 leave after 1700) and transport for both entitled and non-entitled pupils (School Plus)
c) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr for 0800 and 0900 leave after 1700 and 1800), reduced inter-peak service and transport for entitled pupils only (Reduced Service Provision);
d) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr for 0800 and 0900 leave after 1700 and 1800), reduced inter-peak service and transport for both entitled and non- entitled pupils (Reduced Service Provision);
e) Maintaining the current network in its entirety;
f) Geographical larger lots including commuter runs to Stornoway, reduced inter-peak service defined by the operator and transport for entitled pupils only (Operator Lead Network);
g) Geographical larger lots including commuter runs to Stornoway, reduced inter-peak service defined by the operator and transport for both entitled and non-entitled pupils (Operator Lead Network);
h) Have the whole network as one contract, allowing the operator to provide what it can within the budget given after transport for entitled pupils is provided; and
i) Have the whole network as one contract, allowing the operator to provide what it can within the budget given after transport for both entitled and non-entitled pupils is provided.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ New Contracts - Service Delivery Options ▪ 53
6.2.2 Other than in option e) the assumption is that there is no evening service provided.
6.3 ‘School Plus’ Operations
6.3.1 One advantage of the ‘School Plus’ pattern is a potential cost saving by increasing the number of ‘closed door’ or unregistered (see 3.2) school contracts which are not covered by PSVAR requirements.
6.3.2 Adoption of the ‘School Plus’ option would limit the ability to participate in after school activities to an hour or so as the post 1800 departures would no longer run.
6.3.3 On paper this will be the lowest cost option, however there will be a number of issues which push up the cost. There is no doubt that some drivers would be willing to work school peaks only on a part time basis or as a ‘split shift’ arrangement.
6.3.4 However, in the worst case, in order to retain staff and/or conform to TUPE provisions, an operator may be forced to pay a driver through from morning to evening. This cost would be included and charged to CnES. Therefore CnES would be paying for both a vehicle and driver to do precisely nothing during the day, while at the same time there would be public and political outcry, social hardship caused by loss of service and pressure on other government agencies to provide transport to health appointments etc.
6.3.5 There also might be undue expense if the equivalent school run is of a length that it cannot return to Stornoway by 1730, thus needing a second vehicle to fulfil the contract.
6.4 Reduced Service Provision
6.4.1 Here, the effective cost of providing some service between school journeys is likely to be minimal (marginal fuel cost) and the likely revenue on all but the poorest journeys would cover the cost of operation. This makes it more attractive both financially and politically than the ‘School Plus’ model.
6.4.2 The efficiency of this option is based upon the use of school service vehicles throughout the day. As some would be working closed door contracts rather than integrated services there would be an additional cost to bear in relation to the provision of a PSVAR compliant vehicles. This may also in turn create capacity issues on the school services as a 45 or 49-seat vehicle maybe provided in place of a current higher capacity vehicle.
6.4.3 If this option is pursued there is likely to be comparisons made between service provision levels for Stornoway and the other areas of Lewis and Harris.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ New Contracts - Service Delivery Options ▪ 54
It is recommended that there is an assessment of the provision of service based on population levels or density and historic levels of passenger demand.
6.5 Maintaining the Current Network
6.5.1 This is likely to be the most politically acceptable option, but there is only limited scope for savings to be made and thus it is the least affordable. Any savings are mainly made through interworking services and timetable amendments to gain efficiency on vehicle use.
6.5.2 It is also unlikely to address the inefficiency of the current W5 operation which, by serving more back roads than most other mainline services, reduces resource efficiency and the attractiveness of the journey time. Additional vehicle savings could be made through the use of school buses for off peak services, however this creates the same issues as stated in 6.4.2 and begins to diverge from being simply ‘existing contracts’.
6.6 Operator Lead Network
6.6.1 On the one hand this is quite a positive proposal. The operators share the responsibility with CnES in determining the level of service provision. CnES is additionally able to set and maintain the budget as it is based on telling the operators what the funding is, although to get best value for money it would be worth giving a set of funding options.
6.6.2 However beyond one or two of the larger operators there appears to be little appetite among the operators to get involved in determining the level of service provided. From the consultation (see section 8) some operators would see this as CnES just abdicating responsibility rather than a positive partnership approach.
6.6.3 It may also result in inequitable provision if one operator is keener to boost inter-peak services than another, or takes a different approach to marginal costing.
6.7 One Contract
6.7.1 Very few if any of the current operators would wish to design a network for the whole of Lewis and Harris. This would involve having to have a robust route costing model which would lead to a sustainable business and stand up to scrutiny by councillors.
6.7.2 A single contract would reduce the market for contracts on Lewis and Harris in the future. From the consultation operators are likely to join to form two consortia. Operators in the losing consortium will close down their bus business, which will reduce competition for future contracts.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ New Contracts - Service Delivery Options ▪ 55
6.7.3 Thirdly we feel there would be very little if any interest from mainland operators. Stagecoach is now more cautious regarding expansion at the margins whilst the only other Scottish operator likely to bid would be Craig’s of Campbeltown (West Coast Motors).
6.7.4 Fourthly, the single contract approach would almost certainly lead to the closure of Bus na Comhairle. It has no facilities to expand to fifty or so vehicles and if it joined an operator consortium the credibility of its ‘arm’s length’ relationship with the Comhairle would be over-stretched.
6.7.5 It is possible that HCT group might be interesting in taking on a ‘franchise’ type arrangement as a Community Interest Company for Lewis and Harris in the same way it has on Guernsey and Jersey. However, the fundamental differences here are that a) there are no premises involved in the contract and b) the unknown revenue is too great a risk.
6.7.6 Whilst some operators would more than likely be happy to be subcontracted in, especially for feeders, most of the current operators would find themselves out of work. This would result in very few if any local operators being around:
a) If the off-island operator has overbid and pulls out of the contract; or
b) When the contract comes up for renewal if five years’ time.
6.8 Cost Apportionment
6.8.1 Clearly the only option for the new contracts for which the current split of 48% public bus and 52% education transport would continue to be appropriate would be maintenance of the existing contracts as in 6.5.
6.8.2 Any fundamental change demands a recalculation of these proportions with the likelihood that Education pays a much higher percentage, although not necessarily a higher actual cost. This is particularly appropriate if the key resources (vehicle plus driver) are needed to provide statutory school transport and there are public network journeys ‘tagged on’ at marginal cost.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ New Contracts - Service Delivery Options ▪ 56
6.9 Future Fares Strategy
6.9.1 Attempts to promote regular bus use through holding down the price of multi- journey tickets has had no discernible effect upon patronage. In addition the fares increases to the standard cash single and return fares have encountered little resistance. This leads us to believe that:
The CnES ten-journey tickets are too inflexible with their strict time limit before expiry. There is little incentive to encourage their use by anyone other than those who travel five days per week. Extending their period of validity would increase their attraction to those who travel less frequently;
There is little prospect of enticing non-bus users away from their cars – the service frequencies are too low to allow the bus to be a realistic alternative to those who can afford to buy and use a car whilst traffic congestion and difficulties in parking are almost unknown;
The passengers who use the buses make those journeys that are necessary and there is little evidence of suppressed demand. Thus fares promotions are likely to simply reduce revenue as the lower fares do not generate additional travel, while automatically reducing concessionary reimbursement;
Increasing single fares automatically produces a revenue bonus for CnES in terms of concessionary fare reimbursement;
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ New Contracts - Service Delivery Options ▪ 57
Fares on the CnES network are at a level where even significant increases would be insufficient to prompt existing travellers to abandon the bus in favour of private transport. In the survey, increases in fares provoked the least adverse response; yet
as a note of caution, our experience elsewhere informs us that although passengers’ accept increases in line with inflation, reactions to above- inflation increases will be negative, but tempered by the fact that passengers react to the actual size of the increase rather than proportion.
6.9.2 The current CnES adult ten journey tickets are priced in a range from 6.3 to 7.2 times the relevant adult single fare, resulting in the purchaser receiving between 2.8 and 3.7 journeys free of charge. Elsewhere this benefit is between 2.7 and 4.1 journeys (Ulsterbus) and between two and 2.7 journeys (Isle of Man). Thus the basis of the CnES pricing is comparable to that in Northern Ireland and more generous than that in the Isle of Man. Holding the price of these tickets for a second fare increase is not justified.
6.9.3 The equivalent tickets to the ten journey tickets are sold in quantity in Northern Ireland. However, not predominantly by those travelling every day but by those who travel less frequently. In effect there is a bank of trips stocked to use as and when. This should be the CnES model to trade off against significant increases in other ticket types.
6.10 Fare Change Scenarios
6.10.1 We were asked to model the impact of five different fare increase scenarios:
across the board increases of 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%; and
single fares increased by 20%, returns by 15% and 10 journey tickets by 10%.
6.10.2 The ETM data supplied in a consolidated format allows us to identify the total passengers by ticket type and service and the total associated revenue, but we cannot undertake a conventional fare change modelling as this requires us to be able to identify the number of sales made at each fare value for each ticket type. Consequently we assumed that there is little resistance to low fare increases but that the scale of resistance would rise as the size of the fare increase grows. In view of past experiences (see 6.9.1) this does not appear to be an unrealistic position.
6.10.3 We have therefore assumed that rather than applying the industry standard fare elasticity figure of -0.4% across the range that:
the 5% fare increase will encounter -0.1% elasticity,
the 10% -0.2%,
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ New Contracts - Service Delivery Options ▪ 58
the 15% -0.3% and
the 20% increase -0.4%.
6.10.4 While these are lower than ‘normal’ elasticities, the normal values are calculated very much based on urban services and on areas where fares are at or above market rate. CnES is rural and has fares much lower than the norm.
6.10.5 It is also clear from the survey (see section 9) that passengers are less resistant to fares increases than reductions in service. On this basis we estimate that the likely level of change to revenue is as shown below in Table 11 and in Table 12 it is shown by service.
Table 11: Predicted Revenue Changes for Different Scenarios
Additional Additional Increase On-Bus Concessionary Total Yield 5% £14,818 £9,465 £24,284 10% £29,242 £18,931 £48,172 15% £43,290 £28,396 £71,687 20% £56,964 £37,862 £94,826 Variable £48,980 £37,862 £86,842
Table 12: Total Predicted Additional Revenue by Service
Service Annual Revenue Increase from Fare Increase of:
5% 10% 15% 20% Variable W1 £4,435 £8,791 £13,069 £17,269 £14,758 W2 £4,077 £8,092 £12,045 £15,935 £14,429 W3 £676 £1,338 £1,986 £2,620 £2,072 W4 £187 £373 £558 £743 £726 W5 £8,296 £16,452 £24,469 £32,346 £30,596 W7 £402 £802 £1,200 £1,596 £1,595 W8 £1,014 £2,023 £3,026 £4,024 £3,897 W9 £721 £1,431 £2,128 £2,813 £2,417 W10 £3,608 £7,164 £10,667 £14,118 £13,230 W12 £33 £66 £99 £132 £130 W13 £296 £590 £882 £1,172 £1,137 W14 £557 £1,088 £1,611 £2,127 £1,924 Total £24,284 £48,172 £71,687 £94,826 £86,842
6.10.6 The maximum revenue yield is £95k per annum from a 20% increase, assuming no change in services. This represents an increase in revenue of
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ New Contracts - Service Delivery Options ▪ 59
18.2% but it is worth considering that this represents only around 4% of operating costs, as revenue covers such a low proportion of operating cost.
6.10.7 The resistance is comparatively low because increases to single fares automatically carry through to concessionary reimbursement, which forms a significant part of the revenue increase. This will occur for any fare increase concentrated on changes to single fares. Indeed we have modelled the effects of a fare increase which simply increases single fares by 20%, leaving return tickets unchanged, which is predicted to increase revenue by £75k per annum.
6.10.8 Within this, it is also worth pointing out that around 84% of the increased revenue comes from just the four main services (W1, W2, W5 and W10). The revenue impacts of reductions to these services are likely to be far greater than the resistance to fare increases.
6.11 Fares Alternatives
6.11.1 The options above all maintain the current very finely graded, mostly mileage- based farescale. It would be possible to introduce a much coarser, simpler farescale, say in increments of fifty pence. As we do not have access to analysis of ticket sales by fare value we cannot assess any benefits or the effect of so doing, but it would be relatively easy to do within the limits of a 20% increase.
6.11.2 There is also no reason for the increase in fares to a blanket imposition, the increase could be held off for fares which are already at high values.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ New Contracts - Service Delivery Options ▪ 60
7Marketing and Publicity 7
7.1 Current Situation
7.1.1 The current marketing of the CnES bus network is limited – a series of paper timetable leaflets is produced containing the services operated grouped by geographical area and showing the fares charged.
7.1.2 these timetables contain weekday, Saturday, schoolday and non-schoolday journeys in the same table and typically have a myriad of codes (no fewer than 15 on the W2) indicating that a particular journey does or may do on request something in addition to the information contained in the table. The extensions and diversions on request are a particular problem with:
no standard notice period across the network for requesting that they operate; and
only the occasional acknowledgement that, if a particular diversion is requested then the times that the bus arrives at subsequent calling points will be later than those contained in the timetable.
7.1.3 It may be that such publicity is adequate for long term residents and committed bus service users but it is unlikely to be understood by occasional travellers or visitors. Indeed the ‘transport professionals’ at TAS had some difficulty with interpretation. We assume that many people just simply know the time of their bus and any changes are communicated by word of mouth.
7.2 Potential Improvement – Day Rover Ticket
7.2.1 Although not part of the CnES prescribed range of tickets MacLennan Coaches offers a variety of rover tickets with the adult versions priced at £5.50, £6.00, £6.50 and £8.00. These prices are relatively high set against single fare levels.
7.2.2 Their promotion is poor being restricted to the phrase “Discount Rover Ticket around Westside of Lewis, visiting Callanish Stones, Carloway Broch and Arnol Blackhouse” on the front page of the company’s website. We have calculated the pricing structure from the ETM data supplied and information from CnES.
7.2.3 Their major use is on service W2, which serves several of the main tourist destinations. Just under 400 were sold in the period between April 2017 and March 2018. Full details are shown in Table 13.
7.2.4 Given that these tickets are aimed at the visitor market it is not surprising that the vast majority (91%) is sold between April and September. What is more remarkable, given the negligible promotion, is the number sold. The resulting revenue represents a significant boost to that received from residents’ travel and in the July to September period, income from rover tickets (£1,470)
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Marketing and Publicity ▪ 61
exceeded that from both adult ten journey tickets (£1,434) and child single tickets (£1,348).
Table 13: MacLennan Coaches Service W2 Rover Ticket Sales
April to July to October to January to Ticket Type June 2017 September 2017 December 2017 March 2018 Total Sales 6 16 3 25 Adult Rover 1 Revenue £33.00 £88.00 £16.50 £137.50 Sales 76 147 22 3 248 Adult Rover 2 Revenue £456.00 £882.00 £132.00 £18.00 £1,488.00 Sales 11 21 3 35 Adult Rover 3 Revenue £71.50 £136.50 £19.50 £227.50 Sales 29 45 3 1 78 Adult Rover All Day Revenue £232.00 £360.00 £24.00 £8.00 £624.00 Sales 1 1 2 Child Rover 2 Revenue £3.00 £3.00 £6.00 Sales 123 230 31 4 388 Total Revenue £795.50 £1,469.50 £192.00 £26.00 £2,483.00
7.2.5 It is apparent that a market exists for a rover type ticket and whilst the W2 service benefits from a concentration of attractions others could be marketed in a similar fashion. For example the W10 has the Isle of Harris distillery at Tarbert, St Clement’s Church at Rodel and the spectacular beach at Luskentyre and its summer patronage (July to September) is roughly double that in the January to March period, which indicates significant use by visitors.
7.2.6 There is no reason at all that such a ticket should offer any discount compared to single fares. It could easily be a premium product aimed at visitors who value a flexible ticket at a simple price without being limited to a particular journey. The Isle of Wight12, Torquay and Cornwall are other areas where a relatively expensive day ticket is aimed at the visitor market.
7.2.7 In order to be successful such an initiative should be accompanied by the production of special leaflets which, in addition to the details of the attractions served, would also contain suggested itineraries giving clear and simple directions as to:
which bus services and journeys should be used;
the requirement to pre-book travel to and from any destination that is served on demand;
the appropriate boarding points and
12 The Isle of Wight’s Day ticket costs £10 while a 7-day version is £24.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Marketing and Publicity ▪ 62
the times of the journeys.
7.2.8 Of course, this would be aided by simplification of the timetables themselves wherever possible.
7.3 Website Improvements
7.3.1 The CnES website has, contained within the section captioned ‘Roads, Travel and Parking’, a sub-section relating to Public Transport including bus timetables. In fact apart from a general overview of the bus services operated throughout the Western Isles and a summary of the Scottish Concessionary Travel Scheme it contains nothing but web versions of the paper timetable leaflets, replicating their complexity and myriad explanatory notes.
7.3.2 This information is reproduced in electronic format on the CnES website, which does mention that the most popular tourist sites are to be found on the routes of services W2 and W10 (although failing to identify what or where they are). It also cautions intending passengers to “read the timetables carefully, as certain journeys do not operate every day and parts of some routes run only on request”. This warning is well warranted.
7.3.3 It is understandable that, in order to contain their size, the entirety of a service is contained in one table in the timetable leaflets. No such restriction applies to the web-based versions and much greater clarity could be achieved through separating Monday to Friday and Saturday operations and in some
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Marketing and Publicity ▪ 63
cases dividing the Monday to Friday timetable into schoolday and non- schoolday versions.
7.3.4 There is no attempt to market the CnES bus network to the occasional user or the visitor. Whilst it is likely that a resident unfamiliar with the precise details of their local bus service would be able to seek clarification from a relative, friend or neighbour visitors have no such opportunity.
7.3.5 In January 2017 it was reported that 2016 had seen a 22% increase in Western Isles tourist numbers13. A May 2015 CnES report14 revealed that in 2013 a total of 113,000 British resident tourists visited the Outer Hebrides, spending a total of £43 million during the course of their stay. Many of these will have had their own transport but there is substantial potential to attract additional bus travel from within their numbers.
7.3.6 It would be beneficial if the website contained details of possible days out by bus. This would require a specific itinerary to be devised in order to present a simple proposition to people whose local knowledge is likely to be sketchy at best. Implementation of a rover ticket as outlined above would also assist in such a promotion.
7.3.7 Figure H, Figure I, Figure J and Figure K show three different ways of producing timetables. These are all online PDF versions of paper timetable booklets. All split out Monday to Friday services from Saturday services which immediately makes the timetable less cluttered. The latter three additionally use colour coding alongside letter codes to separate variation services varying from those operating every day.
7.3.8 Care needs to be taken with colour coding, which is not favoured by some organisations which represent those with visual impairment. It is clear to see how the fine lines and colours in Figure J cause problems of legibility. The use of colours by West Norfolk CT (Figure I) is clearer but could easily obscure the information underneath. For timetables like those operating in CnES simple clarity in black and white (as in Figure H) is probably recommended.
13 https://www.stornowaygazette.co.uk/news/preparing-the-way-to-attract-more-and-more-visitors-to-the-islands-1- 434943 14 https://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/media/5525/ohfactcards2015.pdf
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Marketing and Publicity ▪ 64
Figure H: Faresaver Service 35
Figure I: West Norfolk Community Transport Services 60, 61 & 65
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Marketing and Publicity ▪ 65
Figure J: Salisbury Reds Service X7
Figure K: Xplore Dundee Service 23
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Marketing and Publicity ▪ 66
8Operator Consultations 8
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 Operator consultation took place by invitation at the Bridge Centre, Stornoway between the 11th and 13th December. Fifteen operators were consulted in total, including Bus na Comhairle. The interviews were structured but allowed free- form comment.
8.2 Current and Future
8.2.1 There was a mix of responses as to why operators had bid for the contracts that they currently hold. Some of the key themes were:
Only a handful of the small operators had a ‘this is the only contract I ever operate’ approach;
Fewer operators than expected felt limited by geographical factors; and
Many of the smaller operators as well as the big ones had bid for more contracts than they necessarily wanted to operate, in order to provide a safety net.
This gave the overall impression that no-one felt safe to overbid for a contract.
8.3 Larger Lots
8.3.1 As expected there was a mixed reaction to the idea of contracting out in larger lots. All of the small operators felt that they would realistically be unable for bid for any lot that was larger than a few vehicles worth of work. Whilst most were willing to be a subcontractor or enter into a joint bid with other operators, the phase ‘the right operator’ was constantly used. This perhaps portrays the difficult relationship between some operators.
8.3.2 Most of the larger operators were willing to bid for larger lots and subcontract out ‘if the price was right’. However there was the acknowledgement that given a need to save money and take a management fee for the subcontracting work it might be hard to find anyone willing to do it. The main message from all operators appeared to be that smaller lots gave better value for money as it allowed all operators to bid on their own account.
8.4 Revised Service Provision
8.4.1 Only a couple of operators said that they would be unwilling to bid for a school only network. The general consensus was that as the bus and driver had to be
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Operator Consultations ▪ 67
paid for the more hours work undertaken the better. This led to a more positive reaction to the school focused network although a number of the feeder operators pointed out that their services were already run that way, although, of course, there needs to be something to feed into.
8.4.2 Most of the suggestions about the operators’ own service(s) revolved around removing little used journeys or converting afternoon ‘integrated’ services into closed door school journeys. It was suggested by a number of operators that the evening provision should be standardised with the current Monday – Thursday service level used all week. A few operators also reported that some pre-bookable journeys are never used whilst another pointed out that the timetable for these journeys isn’t easy to understand.
8.5 Suggested Changes to Current Services
8.5.1 The majority of suggestions for improvement were about other operators’ services. The main themes were:
Public holiday services should be on a Saturday rather than weekday timetable;
Service W2 could be operated with one fewer vehicle as the service level was designed to serve schools which have now closed;
Service W5 is very inefficient due to the way that it operates, serving all the side roads – journey times deter prospective passengers ;
One operator called for an equal service provision for all districts; and
Service W10 could be operated with smaller vehicles outside the summer season.
8.6 Drivers
8.6.1 Whilst all operators felt they had no current issue in retaining drivers, the views on the difficulties of recruiting varied. Some operators appeared to have a more proactive approach than others which explains some of the difference in views. Other points raised were:
Part-time drivers are the hardest to recruit, especially since the introduction of the Driver CPC has led to a lot of older drivers opting to retire,
Some operators solve the problem of #free’ time by employing the driver on other work, not always within the bus business, between school runs;
The more remote the operation the harder it is to find potential drivers; and
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Operator Consultations ▪ 68
Getting a driver through their training and test is expensive – some operators are considering the use of 8 seater vehicles instead of minibuses to get around this cost.
8.7 Fares
8.7.1 The overall consensus appeared to be that the fares currently charged are reasonable. Most operators felt that there was room for an increase, especially in single fares which are used mainly by irregular passengers. However any increase should be done by a small annual uplift (generally 5 to 10 per cent).
8.8 Vehicles
8.8.1 The suggestion of replacing coaches with low-floor vehicles generated negative reactions from all operators who currently use coaches for local bus work. Whilst most acknowledge that the current services that low floor vehicles are used on are suitable, the use of them on longer distances services was dismissed. There were three key reasons for this:
a) The terrain was seen as unsuitable, for example the approximately eight miles of open moorland between Newmarket and Barvas where high winds can affect the doors and windows of a low-floor vehicle;
b) The need to carry large amounts of shopping alongside luggage and even bikes in the summer would overload a low-floor vehicle; and
c) The seating capacity available, especially if seeking to be more efficient by using school vehicles for local bus work outside of school times.
8.8.2 Capacity was raised as a concern for having to use PSVAR compliant coaches on some of the heaviest-used school runs – it was felt that caution needs to be used when assessing which runs would be suitable for use with a PSVAR vehicle and which would not be suitable on capacity grounds and the implications of this for public service provision.
8.8.3 There was some concern over the timescale needed to find any suitable PSVAR coaches in addition to the current fleet, low mileage secondhand examples are hard to find and expensive whilst manufacturers are quoting delivery times of up to six months for new-builds.
8.8.4 Fuel savings were often dismissed as irrelevant when additional costs associated with low-floor vehicles (such as the perceived need for more maintenance) were taken into account.
8.8.5 It was generally felt that the maximum vehicle age specification was a ‘good thing’ as it helped keep up standards. There was, however, a concern among
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Operator Consultations ▪ 69
many of the minibus operators that ten year old minibuses that have passed the DVSA test can be more reliable than brand new vehicles.
8.8.6 There was little enthusiasm for CCTV on vehicles. Minibus operators felt that there was no need for it in such a small vehicle whilst larger bus operators tended to see it as just another expense.
8.9 Subsidy Adjuster
8.9.1 Only one operator was in favour of removing the subsidy adjuster and returning to a simple CPI based increase. All other operators felt that CnES was saving money thanks to the adjuster as it prevents front loading of tender prices and over-cautious pricing. Given that insurance premiums and the minimum wage are both increasing as much as or even more than the rate at which fuel is increasing then there was a reluctance for the adjuster just to focus on fuel.
8.10 Passenger Priorities
8.10.1 The vast majority of operators seemed to feel that you could not prioritise one type of passenger over another. This was an acknowledgement of the fact that whilst their services may be dominated by one type of passenger, other services have a different passenger profile. There was a marked difference between primary integrated services and feeders, with the latter generally having low commuter traffic and high numbers of concessionary passholders who were accessing local shops and health facilities.
8.10.2 Only two operators, one on Harris and one on Lewis, saw ferry connections as an important part of their service. Harris operators were the most vocal regarding tourists with a feeling that there could be a market in the summer for a tourist rover ticket.
8.11 Future Ticketing
8.11.1 It was discovered in the course of preparing for this consultation that Transport Scotland were no-longer seeking to fund e-Purse rollout. There was little objection to it in principle, however.
8.11.2 Contactless payment and QR Codes generated little interest among the operators, the two key questions appeared to be:
a) How much demand would there be? and
b) Who would pay for it?
The latter question tended to have the implication that if it were a prescribed part of the contract then the cost would be included in the bid.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Operator Consultations ▪ 70
8.12 Other Issues
8.12.1 There were three key themes that came out of the open discussion following the questions, these were:
The lack of notice period in the past between contract award and start date – this has led to short notice registrations with the Traffic Commissioner and can create issues if additional vehicles need to be sourced for the contract;
The relationship between Bus na Comhairle and those who are devising, letting and tendering the contracts is seen as too close for some operators; and
Regular updates on the progress of the preparation of the tenders needs to be provided by CnES so that operators know what to expect and when.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Operator Consultations ▪ 71
9Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 9
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 As part of the review of secured bus services for CnES a bus passenger survey was designed by TAS and approved and undertaken by CnES in December 2018. The survey was available in paper format and online through a weblink to Survey Monkey. Paper forms were available at Stornoway Bus Station and Town Hall, libraries in Stornoway and Tarbert and also the Comhairle’s offices in Stornoway and Tarbert. The time period for completion was restricted to 3 December to 15 December inclusive.
9.2 Survey Design and Data Issues
9.2.1 The original intention was that the survey would be carried out on-bus, either using paper forms handed to passengers or face-to-face interviews using electronic handheld devices. As such it was worded appropriately with the expectation that the answers would relate to the specific trip being undertaken by the respondent. A copy of the survey form is included as an Appendix.
9.2.2 In the event CnES had no available staff to carry out surveys which led to the surveys being completed off-bus. With hindsight this should have stimulated a rewording of some of the questions. Questions which would normally be answered more specifically were answered more generally – for example with multiple answers to ‘What time do you usually get on the bus?’ reflecting a range of possible journeys. This has made the analysis and interpretation of the survey results somewhat different.
9.2.3 As a principle we have accepted multiple answers where given and where they are sensible (for example we would reject ‘yes’ and ‘no’ combinations).
9.2.4 Note also that results from surveys where the respondent has to seek out the form do have a tendency to provide skewed results as effectively the surveyor (CnES in general) has no control over sampling. Online surveys in particular have a much younger profile and are much more likely to be completed by those in work.
9.2.5 The distribution of the survey forms has also introduced some skew into the results in that respondents had to be travelling into either Stornoway or Tarbert in order to obtain a form. Thus, for example, the W9 reported a much lower degree of health-related trips than other services because the local health centre is in Lochs and passengers making local trips had no opportunity to obtain a form.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 73
9.3 Responses
9.3.1 In total we received 470 responses, 245 through Survey Monkey and 225 returned paper forms. Response rates to individual questions were high, as shown below in Figure L. The lowest response rates were for Question 6 and the third part of Question 8, both of which relate to fares. It is clear that those who do not pay fares have skipped these questions on occasion.
Figure L: Response Rates to Questions
9.4 Survey Monkey Completion
9.4.1 In Figure M below we summarise the completion time of responses submitted through Survey Monkey. 1900 to 2000 is the peak time for survey completion which mirrors our findings from other electronic surveys.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 74
Figure M: Completion Time of Survey Monkey Responses
9.5 Q1a What Service Do You Use the Most
9.5.1 459 people responded to this question. Some 416 of these only indicated a single service while 43 gave multiple answers. The totals by service are shown in Figure N. Note that since we initially did not aim to carry out surveys on the Stornoway local service (W7) it was not included in the list here.
9.5.2 Services W1 and W2 were used by most respondents, with both parts of service W5 almost as favoured. These, along with service W10, featured highly in multiple answers too.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 75
Figure N: What Service Do You Use the Most?
9.6 Q1b Which Stop Nearest Your Home do you Board at?
9.6.1 This question got one of the lowest response rates, with only 416 responses. After editing out imprecise responses such as ‘our house’, ‘bus shelter’ and others this reduced to 364 valid responses.
9.6.2 We then grouped the responses by village or settlement to produce a list of 93 separate places from which we received responses. The places from which the highest numbers of respondents came were Borve, Leurbost and Tolsta. The results are presented in map form in Figure O to Figure S.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 76
Figure O: Survey Respondents in Harris
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 77
Figure P: Survey Respondents in Lochs
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 78
Figure Q: Survey Respondents in Ness
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 79
Figure R: Survey Respondents around Stornoway
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 80
Figure S: Survey Respondents in the West
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 81
9.7 Q1c: Which Stop do you usually Travel to?
9.7.1 There were 462 responses to this question, notably more than the number of responses to the ‘origin’ question above. As noted below in Figure T the primary destination is Stornoway Bus Station, accounting for 78% of respondents.
9.7.2 There were 79 who specified ‘other’. The majority of these specified other points in Stornoway with the only other place of significance being Tarbert with fourteen responses.
Figure T: Which Stop do you usually Travel to?
9.8 Q1d: What Time do you usually Get on the Bus?
9.8.1 This question produced the highest number of multiple responses of any question. Of 459 respondents to this question, only 246 (54%) indicated a single time period.
9.8.2 Clearly respondents indicated the range of times that they used buses for a variety of journeys. In addition, it was obvious that respondents mainly took this to mean at what time they usually got on a bus to travel into Stornoway as the results show a decidedly ‘morning’ bias. Figure U below shows the boarding times as reported, including multiple entries. If this pattern was
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 83
accurate then it would reflect 51% of trips being made between 0900 and 1200.
9.8.3 In Figure V we look at the results proportionately by main service using aggregated time bands. W9 in particular has a morning bias while the proportions on W2 and W5 after 1800 appear unduly high (but we have no ETM data by time to disprove this).
9.8.4 Overall, we would rather rely on ETM data to produce loading figures by time rather than rely on these data.
Figure U: What Time do you Usually Get on the Bus?
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 84
Figure V: What Time do you Usually Get on the Bus? By Service
9.9 Q2a: What is the Main Reason for your Journey?
9.9.1 This question received the highest response rate at 99% (463 responses). This question also received many multiple responses with 41% of respondents indicating more than one reason. The results, counting all multiple responses, are shown in Figure W. It is notable that while shopping, as expected, was the primary trip purpose (52% of respondents) it was only four percentage points above the proportion of those travelling for work (48%).
9.9.2 It is also notable that the proportion travelling for ‘health/welfare’ is remarkably high at 27% of respondents. Typically we would expect this to be below ten per cent. It is clear, therefore, that the bus network is fairly integral to enabling health services in Lewis and Harris.
9.9.3 Figure X repeats this chart for farepayers only. Note that here the main trip purpose by some margin is employment and shopping has much lower prominence.
9.9.4 Employment-related trips are not equally spread across the services but are focussed mainly on services W1, W2 and both sections of W5. The service with the highest proportion of respondents travelling for employment is W9 and the lowest services W13 and W14 (see Figure Y). Note the proportion of health- related trips is high across all services with the exception of service W9.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 85
Figure W: What is the Main Reason for your Journey?
Figure X: What is the Main Reason for your Journey? – Farepayers
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 86
Figure Y: What is the Main Reason for your Journey? – by Service
9.10 Q2b: If you are travelling for Work, which Sector do you Work in?
9.10.1 This question was clearly aimed only at those who indicated that they used the bus for work purposes of whom there were 220 (see Figure W). Yet there were 277 responses to this question. As a consequence, we limited analysis to only those 220 respondents who answered ‘Employment’ to Q2a.
9.10.2 A significant number of respondents here answered ‘Prefer not to Say’. We are unsure whether this is genuine or whether we omitted some key employment sector.
9.10.3 Retail, health and the local authority sectors are predominant. We suspect the latter is so due to the availability of the survey forms in the Comhairle’s offices. We also conjecture that in summer, rather than December, the numbers in the hospitality sector would be rather higher.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 87
Figure Z: If you are travelling for Work, which Sector do you Work in?
9.11 Q2c: What Time do you Normally Start Work?
9.11.1 As with Q2b, this question was also clearly aimed only at those who indicated that they used the bus for work purposes but there were, in fact, 274 responses to this question. As a consequence, we again limited analysis to only those 220 respondents who answered ‘Employment’ to Q2a. Most respondents selected a single timeband but a significant number reported more than one normal start time.
9.11.2 The results are shown in Figure AA below. It is not surprising that most workers (61%) normally start work between 0800 and 0900, although the significant number who start work after 1200 is notable.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 88
Figure AA: What Time do you Normally Start Work?
9.12 Q2d: What Time do you Normally Finish Work?
9.12.1 Again as with Q2b, this question was aimed only at those who indicated that they used the bus for work. There were, in fact, 275 responses to this question. As a consequence, we again limited analysis to only those 220 respondents who answered ‘Employment’ to Q2a. Many respondents (171 of 220) selected a single timeband but a significant number reported more than one normal finish time. A multiple choice here was more common than for start time.
9.12.2 The results are shown in Figure AA below. There is a much greater variation in finishing times than starting times and more respondents (188) quote finishing times outside the traditional 1700-1800 peak than within it (101). The largest number is those quoting a finishing time after 1800. Indeed we might say this is a suspiciously large number. The after 1800 finishers, as with employment trips in general, are concentrated on services W1, W2 and W5 (both parts).
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 89
Figure BB: What Time do you Normally Finish Work?
9.13 Q3: How often do you Travel on this Service?
9.13.1 454 respondents answered this question. There were some multiple answers to this question too. In this case we took the highest frequency of travel as the correct answer. Note also that the wording of this question is more relevant to an on-bus survey. We took the answer to relate to the main service specified as the answer to Q1a.
9.13.2 Results are in Figure CC below. The vast majority of respondents (83%) are regular users travelling at least weekly. This is not unexpected as we would expect regular users to be more likely to go to the effort of completing an off- bus questionnaire.
9.13.3 As shown in Figure DD, frequent users are concentrated on services W1, W2 and both parts of W5. This correlates with the high number of employment trips on these services. However, even on the low-frequency services there are more regular travellers than infrequent users.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 90
Figure CC: How often do you Travel on this Service?
Figure DD: How often do you Travel on this Service? – By Service
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 91
9.14 Q4: Do you Travel at the same Time Each Day on this Service?
9.14.1 Some 440 people answered this question. On the face of it the wording of the question is aimed only at those who travel daily in the first place, of whom there were only 211.
9.14.2 Figure EE shows the breakdown of all responses (left) and only those travelling ‘daily’ on the right. In each case the proportions are broadly equal, as are the proportions on individual services.
9.14.3 In Figure FF we look at the answers to this question by journey purpose, looking only at those giving a single answer for journey purpose. This chart is notable because of the different balance of ‘no’s including suggesting that forty per cent of those travelling for work vary their times. Overall, however, the proportions reflect those in Figure EE so there is an implication that the overall result is influenced by the high proportion of those travelling to work at regular times.
Figure EE: Do you Travel at the same Time Each Day on this Service?
All ‘Daily’ Respondents Travellers
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 92
Figure FF: Do you Travel at the same Time Each Day on this Service? – By Journey Purpose
9.15 Q5: What Kind of Ticket do you Use?
9.15.1 Some 462 respondents answered this question. Note that the wording of the question invited multiple answers but in the event there were only eighteen of these. The results are shown below in Figure GG. Some 41% of respondents used a concessionary pass, while the predominant ticket type amongst farepayers was the Return.
9.15.2 Given that we suspect a bias to regular users, the number of respondents using the 10-journey ticket is small. Note also that the youth market is poorly represented with only 24 responses, but this age group is much less likely to complete surveys off-bus unless specifically targeted.
9.15.3 In Figure HH we look at ticket types by journey purpose.
A significant minority of those travelling to work has a concessionary pass;
Over half of all shopping and health trips are made by concession-holders;
10-journey tickets are not used exclusively for work trips; and
The highest proportion of single fares is used for work trips.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 93
Figure GG: What Kind of Ticket do you Use?
Figure HH: What Kind of Ticket do you Use? – By Trip Purpose
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 94
9.16 Q6: Do you Consider Current Fares Offer Value for Money?
9.16.1 Only 390 respondents answered this question, giving one of the lowest response rates at 83%. However, it must be borne in mind that concessionary passholders ought to have no interest in fare levels at all although significant numbers did complete this question.
9.16.2 Figure II below shows the results both globally and with concessionary passengers excluded. The close correlation is perhaps surprising. But even more importantly, there can be few areas of the UK where the proportion of farepayers saying ‘Yes’, fares do offer value for money, will be as high as 85%. By comparison, the Transport Focus Bus Passenger Survey for 201715, looking at Scottish operators, found First Glasgow at 71% but most others in the low sixties.
9.16.3 Figure JJ looks at the results by ticket type. This shows only a slight variation by ticket type with holders of ten-journey tickets rating their value more highly and probably reflecting their discount when compared to single fares.
Figure II: Do you Consider Current Fares Offer Value for Money?
All Respondents Excluding Concessions
15 http://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/14203607/BPS-Summary-Report-Report-Mar- 2018.pdf
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 95
Figure JJ: Do you Consider Current Fares Offer Value for Money? – By Ticket Type
9.17 Q7: Do you Use Any Other Bus Services?
9.17.1 446 respondents answered this question. The validity of this question is reduced because a) the respondent was not actually using a bus service at the time and b) 43 respondents had already specified more than one services in Q1a (see 9.5 above).
9.17.2 The overall proportion (Figure KK) shows some 40% of respondents who use more than one service. Of course, this can include those who make a journey which can be made on more than one service, such as Barvas to Stornoway which could be either W1 or W2.
9.17.3 Figure LL breaks the results down by service. There is some interesting variation here with the majority of respondents on service W10 using other services, while some 70% of users of the northern section of W5 are exclusive to that service.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 96
Figure KK: Do You Use Any Other Bus Services?
Figure LL: Do You Use Any Other Bus Services? – By Service
9.18 Q8-1: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service Ran at Different Times?
9.18.1 This first part of Q8 was answered by 440 respondents. A change of time would be resisted to a surprisingly high degree, with 44% saying they would travel less if their bus ran at different times. The main services W1, W2 and
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 97
W5 are more resistant to change than other services (see Figure NN) largely due to their high proportion of employment trips, while those using service W14 are most flexible.
9.18.2 Of journey purposes in Figure OO, ‘External Transport Links’ is most resistant to change (but based on a small sample) which is naturally related to fixed ferry and air timings. Shopping journeys are most flexible. 65% of shoppers would travel the same if times were changed.
9.18.3 Unfortunately, the multiple answers regarding times which were obtained from Questions 1d, 2c and 2d make cross-tabulation of this question against start or finish times very difficult.
Figure MM: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service Ran at Different Times?
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 98
Figure NN: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service Ran at Different Times? – By Service
Figure OO: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service Ran at Different Times? – By Trip Purpose
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 99
9.19 Q8-2: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service Ran at a Reduced Frequency?
9.19.1 This second part of Q8 was answered by 404 respondents. Passengers appear to be most resistant to reduced frequency with no fewer than 70% of respondents saying that they would reduce their frequency of travel if service frequencies were reduced.
9.19.2 The figures by service vary greatly (Figure QQ). Of the three main services, passengers on services W1, W2 and W5 to Point are very resistant to reduced frequencies, those on the Back and Tolsta section of W5 have the lowest level of resistance. Passengers on service W14, who were least resistant to changes to times, are most resistant to frequency reduction.
9.19.3 The findings by journey purpose (see Figure RR) vary surprisingly little from the average.
Figure PP: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service Ran at a Reduced Frequency?
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 100
Figure QQ: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service Ran at a Reduced Frequency? – By Service
Figure RR: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service Ran at a Reduced Frequency? – By Journey Purpose
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 101
9.20 Q8-3: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service had Increased Fares?
9.20.1 This third part of Q8 was answered by 373 respondents. This is somewhat less than the other parts of Q8 but it must be considered that the question is of no relevance to those (e.g. concessionary passholders) who pay no fare. However, many non-farepayers did answer the question. To check validity of the answers, Figure SS shows the summarised answers for all responses (left) and excluding those who do not pay fares (right).
9.20.2 This is the category of least resistance. 68% of respondents would travel the same as now if fares were increased. This falls only slightly to 64% when non- farepayers are excluded.
9.20.3 In Figure TT the responses by service show little variation from the average except service W1 which is significantly more resistant to fares increases than others.
9.20.4 Figure UU looks at resistance to fares increases by journey purpose. There are some notable variations here, with ‘Employment’ and ‘Social/Recreation’ purposes showing significantly lower resistance to fare increases. The latter is perhaps more surprising than the former.
9.20.5 The journey purpose most resistant to fare increases is ‘Health/Welfare’. This appears counter-intuitive in that if someone has a medical appointment the assumption might be that the journey was a necessity. However, this result is based on a comparatively small number of responses.
9.20.6 In Figure VV we can see that the ticket type most resistant to fares rises is the return, but even here 60% of users say they would travel the same if fares rose, about 10% fewer than singles or 10-journey tickets.
Figure SS: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service had Increased Fares?
All Excluding Respondents Concessions
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 102
Figure TT: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service had Increased Fares? – By Service
Figure UU: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service had Increased Fares? – By Journey Purpose
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 103
Figure VV: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service had Increased Fares? – By Ticket Type
9.21 Conclusions
9.21.1 Two aspects have unfortunately reduced the reliability and usefulness of the survey responses. Firstly the mode of issuing and collecting the surveys changed so that the results are less specific to a given journey than we initially expected and the number of multiple responses to questions made pinning down those responses difficult, particularly in relation to time of travel.
9.21.2 The limited availability of forms (effectively in Stornoway and Tarbert only) did introduce some geographic bias. But, by reference to the maps of respondents (see Figure O to Figure S) we felt this was limited. Survey Monkey also tends to distort the age and economic status of sample of respondents and is much more likely to be completed by younger, working people. The fact that the survey was carried out in early December will also have had an influence. Notwithstanding this, 470 responses represents a decent sample size and offers the opportunity for some valid analysis.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 104
9.21.3 There are some clear findings which should be considered in producing the revised network:
a) Shopping was the dominant trip purpose (239 out of 470 respondents) but only slightly ahead of employment (220 out of 470);
b) It is a mistake to assume that employment-related trips occur solely on ‘peak’ journeys or that passengers travel to and from work at fixed times every day, a significant number had a range of times to finish work and in particular;
48% of those travelling ‘daily’ said that they didn’t travel at the same time every day;
c) There was a significant number of work trips made after 1800;
d) The proportion of health-related trips was high at around 15%. This is around three times the ‘norm’. Any significant reduction in service levels would put pressure – including increased transport demands - on health agencies and reduce the opportunity for patients to attend appointments;
e) Passengers were, in general, much less resistant to changes to times or increases in fares than they were to reduced levels of service, when asked:
44% said they would travel less frequently if times changed;
70% said they would travel less frequently if the service was reduced but only
36% said they would travel less frequently if fares increased.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 105
10Conclusions and Recommendations 10
10.1 Conclusions
10.1.1 Services are contracted out either as a whole or split between ‘Integrated’ (daytime) and Evening services. School journeys which are not open to the public are tendered separately. All contracts are due to expire on 1 April but the intention is to extend current contracts to August 2019 with a possible further extension to 1 December.
10.1.2 The full year’s data reveals that 311,898 passengers were recorded and on- bus revenue totalled £348,050, plus the concessionary fare reimbursement of £173,112 giving total revenue of £521,163.
10.1.3 A total of 1,350 pupils have some form of entitlement to daily travel to school for 190 days of term. This allows us to calculate an annual pupil ridership figure. We calculated the number of bus trips by pupils to be 461,700 per year.
10.1.4 The annual cost to CnES of the Lewis and Harris bus network is £4,195,000, with 48% (£2,013,600) allocated to the public network and 52% (£2,181,400) to Education transport. On this basis:
Revenue is covering only 20.6% of costs with the Comhairle covering the remaining 79.4%;
The average subsidy per passenger on local bus services is £6.41; and
Each school trip per pupil costs £4.73 on average (£9.46 per schoolday).
10.1.5 It is clear that fares on the CnES network are generally lower than on the comparator operations and in some instances the disparity is substantial following a TAS comparison on the current cash fares to those charged in other areas where the network is entirely secured or there has been no deregulation.
10.1.6 Fares on the CnES network are at a level where even significant increases are insufficient to prompt existing travellers to abandon the bus in favour of private transport; A TAS model for the impact of different fare increase scenarios is shown in the table below. All these calculations assume an unchanged network:
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 107
Table 14: Predicted Revenue Changes for Different Scenarios
Additional Additional Increase On-Bus Concessionary Total Yield 5% £14,818 £9,465 £24,284 10% £29,242 £18,931 £48,172 15% £43,290 £28,396 £71,687 20% £56,964 £37,862 £94,826 Variable £48,980 £37,862 £86,842
10.1.7 There have been suggestions regarding moving towards the introduction of smartcards on the bus network however smartcards are becoming yesterday’s advance in ticketing rapidly. Other media are taking over which, in general, can be adopted far more quickly and at much lower cost than running a smartcard scheme. The ‘smart’ ticketing alternatives to a card based scheme comprise:
the use of ‘contactless’ bank cards;
the use of ‘m-ticketing’ through the storage of a ticket on a mobile phone app; and
QR codes on paper tickets.
10.1.8 The current marketing of the CnES bus network is limited – a series of paper timetable leaflets is produced containing the services operated grouped by geographical area and showing the fares charged. This information is reproduced in electronic format on the CnES website. Which, apart from a general overview of the bus services operated throughout the Western Isles and a summary of the Scottish Concessionary Travel Scheme, contains nothing but web versions of the paper timetable leaflets, replicating their complexity and myriad explanatory notes.
10.1.9 Although not part of the CnES prescribed range of tickets MacLennan Coaches offers a variety of rover tickets. Their major use is on service W2. Just under 400 were sold in the period between April 2017 and March 2018.
CnES Selected Options
10.1.10 Following on from TAS’s suggested three service delivery option in the interim report, CnES has produced nine scenarios for the new network. These are:
a) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr before 0900 leave after 1700) and transport for entitled pupils only (School Plus);
b) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr before 0900 leave after 1700) and transport for both entitled and non-entitled pupils (School Plus)
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 108
c) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr for 0800 and 0900 leave after 1700 and 1800), reduced inter-peak service and transport for entitled pupils only (Reduced Service Provision);
d) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr for 0800 and 0900 leave after 1700 and 1800), reduced inter-peak service and transport for both entitled and non- entitled pupils (Reduced Service Provision);
e) Maintaining the current network in its entirety;
f) Geographical larger lots including commuter runs to Stornoway, reduced inter-peak service defined by the operator and transport for entitled pupils only (Operator Lead Network);
g) Geographical larger lots including commuter runs to Stornoway, reduced inter-peak service defined by the operator and transport for both entitled and non-entitled pupils (Operator Lead Network);
h) Have the whole network as one contract, allowing the operator to provide what it can within the budget given after transport for entitled pupils is provided; and
i) Have the whole network as one contract, allowing the operator to provide what it can within the budget given after transport for both entitled and non-entitled pupils is provided.
10.1.11 Other than in option e) the assumption is that there is no evening service provided.
10.1.12 Operator consultation took place at the Bridge Centre, Stornoway between the 11th and 13th December. There was a mix of responses as to why operators had bid for the contracts that they currently hold. The responses given indicated that the overall impression was that no-one felt safe to overbid for a contract.
Whilst all operators felt they had no issue in retaining drivers given current service levels, the views on the difficulties of recruiting varied. Some operators appeared to have a more proactive approach than others
The overall consensus appeared to be that the fares currently charged are reasonable. Most operators felt that there was room for an increase, especially in single fares which are used mainly be irregular passengers; however, any increase should be done by a small annual uplift (generally 5 – 10 percent).
10.1.13 The suggestion of replacing coaches with low-floor vehicles generated negative reactions from all operators who currently use coaches for stage carriage work. There were three key reasons for this:
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 109
The terrain was seen as unsuitable;
The need to carry large amounts of shopping alongside luggage and even bikes in the summer would overload a low-floor vehicle; and
The capacity available.
10.1.14 There were three key themes that came out of the open discussion following the questions, these were:
The lack of notice period in the past between contract award and start date;
The relationship between Bus na Comhairle and those who are devising, letting and tendering the contracts is seen as too close for some operators; and
Regular updates on the progress of the preparation of the tenders needs to be provided by CnES so that operators know what to expect and when.
10.1.15 There are some clear findings which should be considered in producing the revised network:
a) Shopping is the dominant trip purpose (239 out of 470 respondents) but only slightly ahead of employment (220 out of 470);
b) It is a mistake to assume that employment-related trips occur solely on ‘peak’ journeys or that passengers travel to and from work at fixed times every day, a significant number has a range of times to finish work;
c) There is a significant number of work trips after 1800;
d) The proportion of health-related trips is high at around 15%. This is around three times the ‘norm’. Any significant reduction in service levels would put pressure on health agencies;
e) Passengers are, in general, much less resistant to changes to times or increases in fares than they are to reduced levels of service.
10.1.16 The questionnaire indicated that the W1, W2, W10 and both parts of the W5 were the majority favoured and the majority of people used the bus for travel to work and/or retail centres.
10.1.17 The majority of respondents also indicated that they believed current fares offered value for money and would likely continue using the bus, even if fares were increased, though this may be a necessity due to needing to travel for work etc.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 110
10.2 Recommendations
10.2.1 We recommend investigation into mobile ticketing and contactless payment as a more cost effective method of improving ticket sales than smartcards.
10.2.2 It is apparent that a market exists for a day rover ticket which could be sold at a premium price, but this depends on the size and extent of the new network.
10.2.3 The period of validity of ten journey tickets should be extended to at least a month.
10.2.4 Regular updates on the progress of the preparation of the tenders needs to be provided to operators by CnES so that they know what to expect and when.
10.2.5 Data on current patronage and revenue should be supplied to bidders for the new contracts.
10.2.6 Bus na Comhairle should be available as a contingency in case of any contract attracting no bids or when, in the Comhairle’s judgment, all bids are unduly expensive.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 111
Appendix A: Passenger Survey Questionnaire
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Appendix A: Passenger Survey Questionnaire ▪ 113
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Appendix A: Passenger Survey Questionnaire ▪ 115
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Appendix A: Passenger Survey Questionnaire ▪ 116
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Appendix A: Passenger Survey Questionnaire ▪ 117
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Appendix A: Passenger Survey Questionnaire ▪ 118
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19 Appendix A: Passenger Survey Questionnaire ▪ 119