Agenda item

To consider the draft Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP).

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 5 to 90, which set out the draft bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) for the Borough.

The report outlined the key objectives of the plan, including to grow passenger numbers to pre-pandemic levels, improvement of bus journey times, and making fares affordable and simpler. A delivery action plan was provided, which gave practical examples of how key objectives might be achieved.

Paul Fishwick (Executive Member for Active Travel, Highways and Transport), Chris Easton (Assistant Director – Highways), and Rebecca Brooks (Community Transport Manager) attended the meeting to answer member queries.

During the ensuing discussion, members raised the following points and queries:

·         Was there a particular timeline for Government funding to be received? Officer response – Very vague timelines were given by Government, with no promise of additional funding. Some Local Authorities had not been able to spend all of their money from the initial rounds of funding, however this did not guarantee any additional funding for Wokingham Borough Council (WBC). The final documented was expected to be presented at the end of January 2023, whilst there was no timeline for an expected announcement from Government;

·         In view of increasing fuel costs and other costs, how were fares proposed to be kept competitive? Executive Member response – Reading Buses purchased their fuel at one point in time for the remainder of the year. Overall, local fares were competitive compared to the rest of England and therefore WBC was in a relatively good position;

·         It was commented that there was a considerable amount of data for members to consider in a relatively short amount of time, which should be a learning point for the future;

·         How were current non-users being attracted to use bus services, and was research being undertaken to understand why people were not taking buses? Executive Member response – Marketing was key, and services were being actively advertised. There was a possible ‘flat fare’ from  January to March 2023 which could attract new users onto services. The point of additional longer term research could be taken away and broached with Reading Buses;

·         In relation to agenda page 16, were the MRT and third Reading bridge aspirations of WBC? Executive Member response – The third Reading bridge was included within the strategic improvement plan for the southeast, however it was still to be determined what would be delivered. The MRT was not thought to be going ahead, however Reading Borough Council were proposing a bus lane from the Reading boundary of the M4 to cemetery junction;

·         A lot of people found crossing busy roads to reach bus stops tricky and off-putting. Could this be factored into surveys? Executive Member and officer response – The survey in the report was undertaken by a third party and was standardised for all authorities. A separate consultation or focus group would be required if this issue was to be further understood. Accessibility was considered, and some issues may be historic which could be reported to the highways team to be looked at separately;

·         Who was responsible for bus shelters in the Borough, some of which provided useful historic timetables, however paper timetables were often damaged or missing. Executive Member response – Some shelters were operated by WBC, others by Town and Parish Councils, and some by advertising companies. Bus companies were responsible for putting timetables in shelters, and specific issues and concerns could be raised with the highways team to be passed on to the operating companies;

·         Were there set timeframes for Local Authorities to apply for Government funding and to receive a response? Executive Member and officer response – There were no timetables available, and this impacted all Local Authorities. Some Local Authorities from the previous funding round had yet to receive their allocated funding, whilst timetables had been set and missed several times by Government. Reading Borough Council had met several times with the Department for Transport, including undertaking site visits, and had still yet to receive their funding;

·         It was noted that concessionary travel had recovered the least from the pandemic, which could partly be due to a fear of returning to buses or people in this group just generally travelling less. Fare paying passengers were key, as they helped fund services;

·         Was this strategy for profit or cost neutral? Executive Member response – Ideally all services would run commercially successfully as this would require no subsidy from WBC. It was noted that WBC currently subsidised a number of services operating thin the Borough;

·         It was noted that a commitment to greener buses was proposed, whilst Reading Buses already operated a very green service. One hundred percent of buses were targeted to be electric by 2040. The majority of buses operating in the Borough were either Reading Buses or Thames Valley Buses, both owned by Reading Borough Council;

·         With bus usage currently at 81 percent of pre-pandemic levels, was this expected to change given that more people were now working from home? Executive Member response – It was likely that this was the new baseline level. It was a priority to encourage users for leisure, retail and communing purposes to use the services;

·         Was it proposed to work with business parks to run services to them with suitable contributions? Executive Member and office response – Officers had engaged in conversations with Winnersh Triangle, Thames Valley Business Park and the Royal Berkshire Foundation. Officers were open to work with businesses and were looking to partner up with lager businesses operating from within the Borough;

·         It was noted that My Journey specifically promoted bus services at new developments;

·         Was secure bicycle storage planned in town centres, near to bus stops? Executive Member response – This was linked to the LCWIP, and it could well be that these services were provided for at certain bus stops;

·         Were bus vouchers or cycle equipment vouchers being explored for residents of new developments? Officer response – This was part of the My Journey personalised travel plan, which worked with new developments;

·         Had connectivity issues been considered, for example travelling from Woodley to Shinfield without having to go via Reading? Executive Member response – It was very difficult to connect everywhere up to tie into where people worked. The main focus was on key travel corridors, and to build on aspirational targets;

·         Had ‘hopper’ services been considered? Executive Member and officer response – The issue with these types of services were that they were high frequency but used smaller vehicles, with less customers, resulting in increased costs. In addition, these services could take passengers away from existing services, whilst requiring additional drivers to operate the services.

RESOLVED That:

1)      Paul Fishwick, Chris Easton and Rebecca Brooks be thanked for attending the meeting;

2)      Officers consider how large documents with considerable amounts of data might best be presented to members to make the most efficient use of the Committee’s time;

3)      Officers consider discussions with Reading Buses on understanding why people chose not to use buses, which was possibly worthy of a longer-term investigation.