Review of Bus Services in the East Riding (Revised Following Public Consultation)

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Review of Bus Services in the East Riding

(Revised following Public Consultation)

December 2016

1

Review of Bus Services in the East Riding 2016

(Revised following Public Consultation)

Table of Contents

Page

The Review of Bus Services in the East Riding 2016: Background and Context.

SECTION 1 SECTION 2

57

The Public Consultation on our proposals in the Review of Bus Services in the

East Riding 2016: Results and Analysis.

Summary by contract of our conclusions following analysis of the results of the public consultation

SECTION 3 SECTION 4

12 16

Our Finalised Proposal for the future of supported bus services in the East Riding and individual Bus Timetables for services which would be affected.

3

4

Section 1

The Review of Bus Services in the East Riding 2016:

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

1.1 Following a comprehensive Parish Transport Needs Assessment process the council developed a proposal for the future of supported bus services in the East Riding of Yorkshire. This proposal was subject to a full public consultation which ran for 8 weeks from 27 June 2016 to 28 August 2016. We have given due regard to what residents have told us through the consultation process, and have revised our original proposal to ensure that we can maintain a public and community transport network that meets people’s strategic transport needs. This document sets out the council’s ﬁnal position, subject to approval by the Cabinet, on the future of the East Riding’s supported bus network, with changes to some services taking effect from 1 April 2017.

journeys. We stated our intention to seek to develop alternative mitigating transport options for the loss of these 59 contracts. These potential mitigation measures included either existing or proposed demand responsive transport options, or the possibility of travelling on a different bus or at a different time.

1.7 We consulted on this proposal, through advertising a survey

online at: www.eastriding.gov.uk/haveyoursay

We also offered residents or visitors the opportunity to attend one or more of 34 Drop-in consultation sessions held at venues across the East Riding. These included visits to rural villages by the BUS IT mobile consultation vehicle. We also established and promoted a telephone helpline and a dedicated email for personal contact. We emailed callers a copy of the FREEPOST questionnaire if they preferred – or ﬁlled this out on their behalf when they telephoned us. The email address was:

1.2 Councils nationally are facing unprecedented pressures on their funding. East Riding of Yorkshire Council has had to save £110 million since 2010 and we have another £60 million to find over the next four years. Given these financial challenges all East Riding of Yorkshire Council services are being reviewed to ensure that they still meet the needs of East Riding residents. Further information on the financial pressures facing East Riding of Yorkshire Counci can be found

at: www.eastriding.gov.uk/councilbusinessplan

[email protected]

and our telephone helpline number was:

(01482) 395008

.

1.8 Details for all Drop-in sessions that took place during the consultation period, including details of venues, dates and times for each session were listed on the ‘Have Your Say’ page of the council website in the consultation pack, given out via the helpline and also advertised through local posters and leaﬂets in villages. All bus stops in the East Riding had posters giving details of how to engage in the consultation process.
1.3 Bus services in the East Riding tend to be provided commercially by operators. As a council we currently step in to provide 90 supported bus contracts, costing £1.3 million annually to provide. It is important to note that these 90 contracts are not 90 full bus services, our supported bus contracts can be for one or more journeys on a service; for evening journeys on a service; weekend journeys on a service or a full service.
1.9 We received 1,128 responses from this process. We also commissioned a telephone survey of a random representative sample of 1,100 East Riding residents which has further informed our analysis of responses and our conclusions. All comments and views have been carefully analysed in detail, and we have taken due account of these before coming to a ﬁnal position on the future of the supported bus network.

1.4 Our Parish Transport Needs Assessment sought to ascertain whether or not these routes were still meeting the needs of the communities they serve. We undertook this with the direct assistance of 72 Parish Transport Champions who volunteered to undertake local transport needs assessments, with our support, in their communities.

1.10 In analysing responses to the public consultation we have had due regards to our statutory duties in regards to securing appropriate public transport provision and meeting strategic transport needs. These duties are outlined in the following Acts of Parliament:
1.5 All 168 East Riding Town and Parish councils were asked to nominate a Parish Transport Champion and 72 Champions were nominated by their local parishes. Questionnaires were prepared by the Champions with our support and distributed in the local community before being returned to us for analysis. This Transport Needs Assessment Process ran from September 2015 until March 2016 and we received 3,398 responses.

Section 63(1)(a) of the 1985 Transport Act Sections 63(6) and (7) and section 9A(5)(6) of the 1985 Act Section 63 (8) of the 1985 Act Sections 89–92 of the 1985 Act

1.6 These responses were analysed and reviewed to assess their relevance to the council’s statutory duties in regard to securing the provision of appropriate bus services and were used to inform the proposal which was outlined in the Review of Bus Services in the East Riding 2016 document. Our proposal in that document suggested that of the 90 current supported bus contracts, 59 contracts would cease, 18 of these being for full services, and 41 for individual journeys, or for evening or Sunday

The 2000 Transport Act Section 3 (2) of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006

Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010

Full details of these Acts can be found at:

www.legislation.gov.uk

5

1.11 To discharge our duties we have therefore sought to establish the level of currently unmet transport need within the East Riding, with particular reference to the needs of the elderly and disabled, our policies as outlined in the Local Transport Plan 2015–29, due regard to climate change, and our duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. We have now decided on the most appropriate ways in which to meet that need, given available resources, having consulted the public on our proposal.
1.15 The public consultation has been extensive and we have received many detailed responses from residents. Our analysis of these responses has led to several changes to the original proposals, including in some cases the retention of some services or parts of services that were formerly proposed to be withdrawn. Where such changes have been made these have been as a result of residents giving us ﬁrm evidence of strategic transport needs which would not be met if our proposal for that service or part of a service went ahead. In other cases we have, in response to the information received, indicated that new or remodelled alternative provision, including demand responsive services, will be developed and implemented. All these revisions are set out in Section 3 of this document.
1.12 Our Review of Bus Services in the East Riding 2016 proposal therefore had at its core an aim for the council to continue to meet, in accordance with its statutory duties, and as far as its resources and funding allows, those transport needs for which there is no potential alternative provision. In developing this a number of assessment criteria were utilised to ensure public funding is spent in line with best value principles having regard to the combination of economy, efﬁciency and effectiveness. Existing supported bus services were scored against the following criteria:

(i) Annual number of passengers (ii) Average passengers per journey (iii) Subsidy per passenger (iv) Category of Journey (v) Proximity of Potential Alternative Service

(vi) Environmental impact of any changes to the bus service.

1.13 Our Balanced Scorecard identiﬁed 31 supported bus contracts as potentially meeting strategic needs of the local communities they serve. However on the basis of our assessment criteria and having regard to the funding currently available, the council decided it could no longer offer subsidy to a further 59 supported bus contracts. In the case of the bulk of those services which it was proposed would no longer be supported opportunity for travel on an alternative service was identiﬁed. We also explained that the potential for a demand responsive transport alternative would be explored for 13 services, and that alternatives needed further investigation for seven services.

1.14 Where services will no longer be supported our ﬁnalised proposal continues to offer the following actions to mitigate the potential impact of the service withdrawal on our bus users:

(i) The new categories of assessment for route support will, as far as reasonable, prioritise support to those services where there is no alternative service;

(ii) We will continue to offer support to local parishes to ﬁnd alternative ways of meeting transport needs and then sourcing alternative sources of funding to pay for this, until at least 31 March 2017;

(iii) We intend to continue to work with the Parish
Transport Champions and seek funding for the establishment of a Community Bus Service Partnership (CBSP) to support their ongoing work;

(iv) We intend to explore other sources of funding with bus and community transport operators to allow them to provide services themselves.

(v) We intend to develop and introduce innovative ways of raising awareness of bus and community transport services (e.g. through social media);

(vi) We will provide journey planning advice for bus users where the future bus service provision has adversely affected them to the degree that no alternative is available.

6

Section 2

The Public Consultation on our proposals in the Review of Bus Services in the East Riding 2016:

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

2.1 The public consultation (online or paper) received 1,128 responses. Of these the vast majority were bus users (96%). 24% of all respondents travelled by bus on at least 5 days per week, 42% 2/3 times a week and 12% once week. Over three quarters of all responses were therefore from regular bus users, and their (and all other) responses to each question, including detailed literal comments could be tied back to the relevant bus service or services used. It has therefore been possible to analyse the speciﬁc impacts of our proposal cited by respondents in detail, as well as drawing broader statistical assumptions based on higher-level analysis of data from both the online and telephone surveys.

2.5 The telephone survey was based on achieving a balanced sample of bus users, non-bus users and non-bus users with other family members who used the bus. As a result it gives a more balanced view of the level of impact from a county-wide perspective. However our statutory duties in relation to transport required us to investigate, and have due regard for, the higher levels of impact cited by bus users in the online survey, despite the often small numbers of responses for some services, and their levels of statistical reliability. Figure 2 below shows that in whole population terms the potential adverse impacts are low, while for bus users the potential impact is precisely the reverse – high. These ﬁndings are also echoed in the telephone survey, which found that frequency of bus use correlated strongly with citation of adverse impact. While overall only 12% of the representative telephone sample stated that the proposal would have an impact on them, 31% of those that used a local bus service 5 times or more a week, and 23% of those that travelled 2/3 times a week cited adverse impact.

2.2 Respondents to the public consultation used the bus for a wide range of (often multiple) journey purposes. Figure 1 below sets these out below:

Figure 1: Online Survey: Bus User’s Journey Purposes

For what purpose do you travel by bus ? (Please tick all that apply)

Figure 2: Impact of Proposals Cited in Online/paper and Telephone Survey

Having looked at ‘Our Proposal’, will this have an impact on you?

WORK

EDUCATION ORTRAINING (83) - 8%

SHOPPING

(209) - 20%

100%
90%

(845) - 80%

88%

90%

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
0

HEALTH (DOCTORS/HOSPITAL) (558) - 53% VISIT FAMILY OR FRIENDS (489) - 46% RECREATION LEISURE

(619) - 59%
OTHER (PLEASE GIVE DETAILS BELOW (83) - 8%

2.3 58% of respondents to the online/paper survey did not have regular access to a car, and 66% were concessionary bus pass holders. In respect of the council’s three options for making savings in relation to its supported network only 2.1% of respondents supported Option 1 (withdraw all supported services). 52.6% supported Option 2 (the council’s preferred proposal set out in the Bus Services Review), and 45.3% indicated that they felt savings should be found elsewhere.

12%

11%

YES Online/paper
NO
Telephone

2.6 Those citing some or significant impact in the online/paper survey were asked how this would affect them personally and given four options. Further information could then be given in a literal response. 25% said it would make them travel at a different time and 4% that it would make them travel on a different day. 36% said the proposal would stop them using public transport (either through being unable to travel or choosing not to do so), and 34% said the proposal would make
2.4 45% of respondents to the online/paper survey stated that the proposals would have ‘significant’ adverse impact on them, and 37% cited ‘some’ impact. We commissioned coding and analysis of all literal responses to both the online and telephone surveys, and as a result it has therefore been possible to interrogate the literal aspects of these citations, and come to view on whether, as a result, we should revise or maintain our proposals for specific services or parts of services.

7

them use a different form of transport (e.g. using community transport, cycling, taking a taxi or travel by car). In some cases further information revealed that this would incur additional costs, or lead to heavy reliance on others/loss of independence. However, in answering this questio, respondents may not have known the alternative travel options available. result 12 services or parts of services will be retained rather than withdrawn from April 2017 and 9 services or parts of services will be remodelled or replaced by new demand responsive alternatives. In some cases further discussions will be necessary with the service operator, who may consider timetable changes or commercial operation of some services in response to our final proposal, if and when this is approved by the council’s Cabinet.
2.7 A set of 24 graphs was produced for responses to each affected bus service, cross-tabulating age, disabilities, access to a car, journey purpose and frequency of use for all respondents citing some or significant impact from the proposals. 31% of respondents to the online/paper survey considered themselves to have a disability, of which 36% cited a physical impairment and 38% a long standing illness or health condition. 33% cited a sensory impairment. From these sets of graphs (see the examples given on the following three pages) analysis templates were drafted for each affected service and the extent and nature of impacts cited were given due consideration. As a
2.8 Where we have stated that we will explore the potential for demand-responsive alternative provision we have set out outline proposals for what this is likely to consist of in this document. Until we develop tenders to secure appropriate demand responsive provision it is difficult to give precise details of route schedules and pick-up times. However these will be advertised to relevant communities well in advance of start-up. It is expected that demand responsive services will be booked through the council’s existing Passenger Services Call Centre

8

EXAMPLES OF GRAPHS USEDTO ASSESSTHE IMPACT OF OUR PROPOSALS AS CITED BY RESPONDENTSTOTHE BUS SERVICES REVIEW

The graphs on the following three pages relate to responses to our proposals for bus service number 45/46/46a

1 Service 45/46/46a: Analysis for respondents aged over 65 without access to a car

who stated that our proposal would have some or signiﬁcant impact on them

3(a) Purpose of travel and frequency of travel

3(b) Purpose of travel and travel impact

25

30

3

25

2

42

20 15 10
5

11

1

20

1

5
2

15
2
1

1

13

15 10
5

11

41

10

29

13

9
10
9
9
8

1

At least 5 days a week 2/3 times a week Once a week
Once or twice a month A few times a year
It would make me travel at a different time It would make me travel on a different day It would stop me using any public transport It would make me use a different means of transport

3(c) Literal responses: personal impact cited by respondents

Leisure/Social Financial Environmental Unable to travel Rely on others Wellbeing Health Education Inconvenience

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Respondents aged 65+ without regular access to a car are frequent travellers for health, shopping, visiting and leisure. While many indicate that they would alter their time of travel for strategic needs four people cite adverse impacts on health and given these responses we have amended our proposal to retain and vary the route of the 16.35 Bridlington to York service.

9

2 Service 45/46/46a: Impact Analysis for people aged over 65 without access to a car who consider themselves to be disabled and who stated that our proposal

would have some or signiﬁcant impact on them

3(e) Purpose of travel and travel impact

3(d) Purpose of travel and frequency of travel

16

8

1

7

14

12 10
8

2

4
1

1
1

1

654321

1

2
3
1

4
14
1

2

6

9
8

4

7
6

2

1

1
11
1
1

It would make me travel at a different time It would stop me using any public transport It would make me use a different means of transport

Response 3(f) Literal responses: personal impact cited by respondents

Leisure/Social Financial Unable to travel Rely on others Wellbeing Health Education

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Three respondents aged 65+ without regular access to a car and who consider themselves to be disabled also cited adverse health impacts.The service retention/route variation in our revised proposal should reduce adverse impacts expressed.

10

3 Service 45/46/46a: Impact Analysis for people aged up to 65 without access to a

car who stated that our proposal would have some or signiﬁcant impact on them

3(g) Purpose of travel and frequency of travel

3(h) Purpose of travel and travel impact

25

12

8

20

15 10
5

5
2
1

3
2