Bus Strategy 2015 Information Pack. 23/07/15 Version

Similar documents
FINAL REPORT TO SHEFFIELD BUS PARTNERSHIP OPERATIONS GROUP FROM: WORK PACKAGE 5 PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK & UPDATE DATE OF MEETING: 19 OCTOBER 2012

Consumer Attitude Survey

Bus The Case for the Bus

Denver Car Share Program 2017 Program Summary

Car passengers on the UK s roads: An analysis. Imogen Martineau, BA (Hons), MSc

Integrating transport (buses)

WEST YORKSHIRE BUS STRATEGY 2040

Bus Passenger Survey

Dr. K. Gunasekaran Associate Professor Division of Transportation Engineering Anna University Chennai

Fiji Bus Industry: improving through greening

Public Transport Proposals including: Subsidised Bus Services, Concessionary Travel and Community Transport Draft Passenger Transport Strategy 2016

Urban Transport systems in major cities in China. Sun Kechao Senior Engineer China Academy of Transportation Sciences, Beijing, China

Bus Passenger Survey. Autumn 2015 Report

2011 Saskatoon Transit Services Annual Report

More persons in the cars? Status and potential for change in car occupancy rates in Norway

Bus Passenger Survey autumn 2013 results Merseytravel (Merseyside PTE area)

Reducing CO 2 emissions from vehicles by encouraging lower carbon car choices and fuel efficient driving techniques (eco-driving)

Three ULTra Case Studies examples of the performance of the system in three different environments

Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI)

Department for Transport. Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit Values of Time and Operating Costs

Bus Rapid Transit. Briefing. Common to all BRT schemes is the aim to improve passengers experience and percep on of public transport

Low Emission Vehicle Policy Development in London

MAR1011. West Birmingham Bus Network Review March 2010

How BRT can develop the bus mode in Dublin Paddy Doherty, Chief Executive, Dublin Bus

The Central London Congestion Charge

Mysuru PBS Presentation on Prepared by: Directorate of Urban Land Transport

Electric Vehicles: Moving from trials to widespread adoption in the North East of England

BIRMINGHAM CONNECTED Anne Shaw Tuesday 20 January 2015

Bus Passenger Survey spring Centro authority area, and National Express (NX) routes within Centro

Aging of the light vehicle fleet May 2011

CITY OF VANCOUVER ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

IKORODU- CMS BRT EXTENSION PROJECT

Visioning and Backcasting for UK Transport Policy

Table of Contents. 1.0 Introduction Demographic Characteristics Travel Behaviour Aggregate Trips 28

Shared Transport experience from the UK

RHA NOx Emission Assessment 2018

Diesel % Market Share

Policy Note. Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost.

annual performance greener, smarter travel stagecoachbus.com/northeast

Whither the Dashing Commuter?

TRAFFIC SURVEY REPORT HARVINGTON PT1 (CREST HILL)

Impact of Copenhagen s

Targeting TDM Policies Based on Individual Transport Emissions

Tram Passenger Survey. Autumn 2013 Report

TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING RAIL TRAVEL - TRANSFORMING

UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018

Figure 1 Unleaded Gasoline Prices

Seoul. (Area=605, 10mill. 23.5%) Capital Region (Area=11,730, 25mill. 49.4%)

Submission to Greater Cambridge City Deal

BUS SERVICES IN CHAMBERLAYNE ROAD NW10

Poppy Lyle Greater London Authority

SPARTA Ridership Satisfaction Study

Transport and the rural economy. Gordon Stokes

Low Emissions Towns and Cities Programme

Our mission is to be the best public service transporter for passengers in the city of Kigali using modern, clean and safe urban city buses.

L O W E M I S S I O N CITY

Urban Mobility Systems - Regulation Across Modes

ACT Canada Sustainable Mobility Summit Planning Innovations in Practice Session 6B Tuesday November 23, 2010

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND POLICY COMMITTEE MAY 5, 2016

Modernising the Great Western railway

BENCHMARKING URBAN TRANSPORT-A STRATEGY TO FULFIL COMMUTER ASPIRATION

How will high speed rail transform the sheffield city region

Mobility on Demand, Mobility as a Service the new transport paradigm. Richard Harris, Xerox

Innovation in Transport. Mike Waters

The City of Toronto s Transportation Strategy July 2007

Downtown Transit Connector. Making Transit Work for Rhode Island

PROMOTING THE UPTAKE OF ELECTRIC AND OTHER LOW EMISSION VEHICLES

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

London s Congestion Charge. Introduction to the Scheme and its Principal Impacts

CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 6

How to make urban mobility clean and green

Help shape your community investment in Wake Transit. Fiscal Year 2019 Draft Work Plan Summary

WATFORD LOCAL PLAN PART 2. Review of Car Parking Policy and Standards. Evidence Base. February 2012

Geneva, 67th SC.2 Session October 2013 High Speed Trains Master Plan

EXPERIENCE IN A COMPANY-WIDE LONG DISTANCE CARPOOL PROGRAM IN SOUTH KOREA

Figure 1 Unleaded Gasoline Prices

8. TRIP DISTRIBUTION. 8.1 Trip Distribution by Trip Purpose. Figures 8.1 show desire lines by trip purpose. < To Work >

The Engineering Department recommends Council receive this report for information.

Back ground Founded in 1887, and has expanded rapidly Altitude about 2500 meters above MSL Now among the ten largest cities in Sub Saharan Africa

Final Report. LED Streetlights Market Assessment Study

DRAFT Evaluation Scores. Transit

Warring Neilsen Corporate Affairs Manager Elgas

PREFACE 2015 CALSTART

Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5.

Onward travel. Insights from HS2 online panel

Findings from the Limassol SUMP study

Economy. 38% of GDP in 1970; 33% of GDP in 1998 Most significant decline in Manufacturing 47% to 29%

TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS

Milano, from pollution charge to congestion charge

Performance Measure Summary - Large Area Sum. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Medium Area Sum. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Survey on passengers satisfaction with rail services. Analytical report. Flash Eurobarometer 326 The Gallup Organization

UC Santa Cruz TAPS 3-Year Fee & Fare Proposal, through

Proposals for an Ultra Low Emission Zone

brought to you by the Transport Knowledge Hub: Public Transport and the next generation Michelle McCormick, NZ Transport Agency

Parking Management Strategies

Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study

Tarrant County Projected Population Growth

The Case for. Business. investment. in Public Transportation

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE REVOLUTION

Transcription:

Bus Strategy 2015 Information Pack 23/07/15 Version 1

Introduction to the Information Pack This Information Pack has been compiled to provide a statistical summary of the Liverpool City Region bus market at the start of detailed work to embed a new emerging bus strategy as part of a deeper Alliance between the public and private sector. The Alliance will strive to ensure the bus offer in the city region meets the needs of the customer, and drives up fare paying passenger growth. This information pack is split into four main sections: A: Customer (Passenger) Data B: The Network (The Bus Offer) C: Customer and Consumer Insight D: Summary of Bus Policy Guidance and Best Practice The Network / Bus Offer What Type When Who Volumes Where The Customer rategy Frequency Why 2

Section A: The Customer 3

The Customer: Volume of Travel trends 136.5 million bus passenger journeys were made in Merseyside in 2013/14 A small 0.3% rise last year, although still more than an 8% decrease over 5 years Over the past 14 years there has been a 15% fall in adult bus journeys, but a 47% fall in recorded child bus journeys Millions 170 165 160 155 150 145 140 135 130 125 120 Annual Merseyside Bus Patronage Source: Merseytravel Annual Statistical Monitor Trends in National Bus Patronage Merseyside experience of bus patronage decline is common to the other Metropolitan areas - long term fall in bus patronage for non London urban areas Variety of causes to decline but strong relationship with changes to car ownership levels London experience driven by a variety of factors (see slide 6) Source: DfT Annual Bus Statistics 4

The Customer: Volumes of Travel and Car Ownership Car ownership is a key explanatory variable on volumes and propensity to use the bus In Merseyside 84% of those using the bus do not have a car as an alternative for their journey Source: DfT Annual Bus Statistics LCR Proportion of Bus Trips made by Household Income Bracket 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Source: Countywide Survey 2013 LCR Bus Trips by Car Availability 16% 84% Car available No car available Source: Countywide Survey 2013 70% of LCR bus trips are made by those with household incomes of less than 20,000 For most people rising incomes mean rising car ownership and reduced bus usage 5

The Customer: Bus travel volumes in context Number of Trips per day LCR total weekday volumes of travel by mode 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 100% 90% 80% 70% Bus is the fourth most popular mode of transport in LCR Bus trips accounts for 13.3% of all travel Comparison of Travel to Work Data by Region of Residence 2013 2.8% 10.9% 8.1% 8.1% 10.5% 11.8% 11.9% 11.2% 10.1% 2.3% 4.0% 2.8% 2.1% 2.8% 4.1% 3.8% 2.5% 5.5% 6.0% 12.9% 9.6% 8.9% 11.5% 12.5% 9.9% Source: Countywide Survey 2013 10% of Merseyside commuting journeys were made on the bus in 2013 Other PTE areas have similar bus mode shares London has much higher levels of bus use and bus mode share. Key factors for this are low Car Ownership levels, congestion charging, public sector investment in infrastructure and fares policy. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 45.0% 18.9% 14.4% Inner London 71.0% 71.8% 72.3% 70.2% West Midlands FMC Greater Manchester FMC West Yorkshire FMC Source: DfT Regional Transport Statistics South Yorkshire FMC 67.4% 70.1% Tyne and Wear FMC all other modes walk cycle all rail bus/coach car Merseyside 6

Context: Bus travel volumes in London There is a tendency to associate the differing trends in bus patronage in London and the PTE areas with the differing regulation models. Analysis published recently and shown in summary below suggests that key explanatory variables include population and employment growth and policy measures involving considerable public sector investment such as congestion charging. It should be noted that a strengthened policy platform and greater investment in London did allow measures such as congestion charging to be introduced but the analysis does highlight the variety of factors at play in the bus patronage growth in London Annual Passenger Journeys in London and PTE areas TAS Modelling of variables underpinning patronage growth in London Source: TAS Analysis of DfT Annual Bus Statistics and ONS data. Elasticities used from National Bus Model. Passenger Transport magazine. April 2015. 7

The Customer: Bus travel choice for key Merseyside Centres Mode Share by Merseyside Centre AM Peak 2013/14 Mode Share by Merseyside Centre Inter Peak 2013/14 Birkenhead 54.5% 26.2% 7.3% 1.7% 9.8% 0.4% Birkenhead 44.5% 29.3% 5.5% 2.2% 18.3% 0.3% Bootle 72.8% 16.6% 2.9% 1.6% 5.6% 0.5% Bootle 65.2% 23.2% 1.8% 2.2% 7.3% 0.3% Huyton 72.5% 9.8% 2.4% 15.2% 0.2% Huyton 64.0% 16.1% 5.7% 14.1% 0.2% Liverpool 36.8% 22.8% 29.6% 1.1% 8.8% 0.8% Liverpool 31.5% 30.3% 24.4% 2.0% 11.3% 0.5% Southport 79.2% 8.4% 4.1% 0.9% 6.2% 1.2% Southport 73.5% 10.4% 5.9% 0.6% 8.5% 1.0% St Helens 59.2% 25.8% 2.0% 1.2% 11.3% 0.6% St Helens 50.2% 32.1% 2.4% 1.1% 13.8% 0.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Private vehicle Bus Train Taxi Walk Cycle Private vehicle Bus Train Taxi Walk Cycle Source: Merseyside Mode Share Surveys Patterns of bus usage are not uniform around the key urban centres in Merseyside: Bus has a greater market share in the inter-peak period St Helens and Liverpool central area bus mode share is around three times the size of Southport s Bus Modal share outside of trip making to / from the key urban centres is typically much lower 8

The Customer: Who uses the Bus? (1) Merseyside Bus Patronage Source: Merseytravel 16% 35% Child / Scholar Adult Concessionary 49% 49% of bus users are fare paying adults 35% of users have concessionary passes Women make more bus trips than men Bus mode share is highest amongst 16-18 year olds. Bus mode share then declines in working age groups before notably increasing for those aged 60+ LCR Bus Patronage by Gender % of Trips by Mode Modal Choice by Age 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 5-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-18 yrs 19-24 yrs 25-34 yrs 35-44 yrs 45-54 yrs 55-59 yrs 60-64 yrs 65+ yrs Walk Pedal cycle Motorcycle Car/van (passenger) Car/van (driver) Train Bus/Coach Other Percentage of LCR Bus Trips made by Age band 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% Source: Countywide Survey 2013 44% 56% Male Female 10% 5% 0% Under 16 16-18 19-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64 65 plus Source: Countywide Survey 2013 9

The Customer: Who uses the Bus? (2) LCR Bus Trips by Employment Status LCR Bus Trips by Educational Attainment 8% 5% Full time employed 18% Part time employed Houseparent 34% 11% 4% Student Retired 20% Unemployed Other 16% 11% 22% 6% No formal qualifications 45% 1-4 O levels/gcse s or NVQ level 1 equivalent 5 plus O levels/ GCSE s or NVQ level 2 equivalent 2 plus A levels or higher diplomas Degree (BA, BSc) or higher Source: Countywide Survey 2013 Source: Countywide Survey 2013 Retired persons account for the largest proportion of LCR bus trips 18% of all LCR bus trips were made by those in full time employment High number of trips are made by those with no formal qualifications or only basic qualifications 10

The Customer: Where are they travelling? Busiest Bus routes by passenger usage and scheduled mileage District Liverpool 10 Liverpool 82 Liverpool 14 Liverpool 86 Liverpool 53 Liverpool 79 Wirral 437 Liverpool 80 Liverpool 20 Liverpool 21 Service No. Scheduled mileage Source: Merseytravel Note: Passenger usage figures by route not shown 2,429,595 1,396,784 1,155,839 989,138 976,747 906,109 664,427 658,273 578,115 584,013 Total volumes of bus trips are highest in Liverpool (47% of all LCR trips) The largest proportion of bus trips made in the LCR are for journeys between 2 and 5km (42%) LCR total volumes of bus trips by district 10% 6% 10% 11% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 16% 47% Source: Countywide Survey 2013 LCR bus trips by distance band (%) Liverpool Wirral Sefton Knowsley St Helens <2km 2<5km 5<10km 10<20km 20km+ Source: Countywide Survey 2013 11

The Customer: Where are they travelling? (2) Number of Merseyside Bus Trips by Origin Percentage of Merseyside Bus Trips by Origin Highest levels of bus passenger trips start in Liverpool, typically in more deprived areas, and those without a good rail service Source: Merseytravel/Census 2011 Source: Merseytravel/Census 2011 12

The Customer: Where are they travelling? (3) Number of Merseyside Bus Trips by Destination Percentage of Merseyside Bus Trips by Destination Liverpool City Centre, Halewood/Speke, Birkenhead, Bootle, Kirkby, Southport and St. Helens are the most popular destinations for bus passengers Source: Merseytravel/Census 2011 Source: Merseytravel/Census 2011 13

The Customer: Purchasing Patterns Merseyside Bus Mileage by Payment Type 34% 19% Cash Prepaid Concessionary 47% Source: Merseyside Annual Statistical Monitor Only 19% of bus passenger miles are now cash (single/return cash fares). There has been a large decline in cash (single/return tickets) purchased. Operator prepaid ticket sales (includes daily & weekly tickets purchased from the driver) now have the largest share of tickets used (32%) Concessionary pass usage accounts for 30% of passenger journey mileage Merseyside Bus Mileage by Payment Type 20% 30% 6% 4% 8% 32% Source: Merseyside Annual Statistical Monitor Cash Saveaways Trios Solos Source: Merseyside Annual Statistical Monitor Operator Prepaid Tickets Concessionary 14

The Customer: Why and When do they use the bus? LCR Bus Trips by Journey Purpose 2013 Proportion of trips made by time of day for Weekday, Saturday and Sunday 15% 0% 21% Commute 18% 32% 14% Education Shopping Personal Business Leisure Business Source: Countywide Survey 2013 Shopping is the most common purpose of a bus trip (32%) Commuting is the second most common purpose of a bus trip (21%). Source: Arriva October 2014 data The busiest time for weekday travel is 3-4pm Saturday and Sunday travel volumes peak at 12-1pm. All day total volumes on Saturday are 54% of a weekday, with Sunday volumes around 25% of a weekday Variance in loadings by day, week and month are significant due to factors such as weather and school/university term times. 15

Section B: The Network 16

The Bus: Who provides? In 2013/14 the total scheduled bus mileage provision increased by 0.3% to 41.7 million miles. 15% is supported mileage. Operator Share: Miles (millions) Commercial and Supported Mileage run by Time of Day 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 13% 10% 26% 15% 17% 27% 83% 87% 90% 74% 85% 73% Early am Peaks Inter Evenings Saturdays Sundays Commercial Peaks Supported Source: Merseyside Annual Statistical Monitor Source: Merseyside Annual Statistical Monitor 17

The Bus: Where can you can travel? Merseyside Commercial Network Merseyside Supported Network Source: Merseytravel Source: Merseytravel 18

The Bus: Network speeds and Key Route Frequencies Average Speeds and Journey Times on busiest routes Service No. Route Mileage (1 way) Average Speed (mph) Average Journey Time (mins.) 10 Liverpool St Helens 11.8 12.4 57 14 Liverpool- Croxteth 7 10 42 82 Liverpool- Speke 10 12 50 86 Liverpool - Liverpool South Parkway 7 10.2 37 53 Liverpool - Crosby 8.8 11.7 45 79 Liverpool Halewood 11.2 12.3 55 437 Liverpool West Kirby 11.8 12.6 56 20 Liverpool - Kirkby 11.7 11.2 63 21 Liverpool - Kirkby 12 11.5 63 Source: Merseytravel District Liverpool 10 Liverpool 14 Liverpool 82 Liverpool 86 Liverpool 53 Liverpool 79 Wirral 437 Liverpool 20 Liverpool 21 Liverpool 80 Service No. Peak Frequency 20 b/hr 16 b/hr 20 b/hr 20 b/hr 12 b/hr 12 b/hr 6 b/hr 6 b/hr 6 b/hr 6 b/hr Average bus speeds vary by just 2.6 mph across the services shown. The speeds shown compare favourably to average speeds achieved in inner and outer London 19

The Bus: Reliability Information Bus Reliability measures for scheduled and frequent services Source: Merseytravel roadside reliability surveys 2008 to 2015 20

The Bus: Reliability Information (Operator Info) Sources: Stagecoach and Arriva reliability data Reliability levels (services that run) are consistently high and above 98% for all major routes Punctuality levels for available routes show much more variation with some routes showing over 40% not arriving within the 5 mins late / 1 mins early on time definition window Average performance on these 4 routes is broadly similar to that recorded in the Merseytravel data on the previous slide 21

The Bus: What Type Fleet and Infrastructure?. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Merseyside bus fleet is approximately 1,300 vehicles. The average age of Merseyside's bus fleet had decreased to 7.7 years by April 2014 39.8% of the fleet was less than 5 years old in that year. Average Age of Bus Fleet in Years Source: Merseyside Annual Statistical Monitor Bus Fleet Age Profile Over the Last 4 Years 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2013/14 % by category <1 year 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years >15 years Source: Merseyside Annual Statistical Monitor There are 6,134 bus stops on Merseyside, 2,620 of which have shelters (43%). Stops and Shelters by District 2013/14 Shelters District Advertising Other types Stops Without shelters Knowsley 32 250 445 727 Liverpool 338 616 692 1,646 Sefton 177 358 707 1,242 St Helens 8 289 728 1,025 Wirral 89 463 942 1,494 Shelters Sub Total 644 1,976 All Types Totals 2,620 3,514 6,134 Source: Merseyside Annual Statistical Monitor 22

The Bus: What Type Fleet and Infrastructure? NOx emissions by Vehicle Type Emissions (Engine standard) - Merseyside Bus Fleet Proportion of NOx Emissions 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 20.0% 10.4% 20.3% 49.4% 41.6% 4.3% 17.0% 37.2% 25.7% 36.2% 36.0% 1.0% 16.3% 10.3% 19.3% 15.7% 13.7% 43.6% 42.3% 40.0% 500 400 300 200 100 0 44 30 49 5 6 4 3 196 353 140 431 3 52 158 10% 0% Merseyside Roads Millers Bridge AQMA M6 AQMA Car LGV Bus HGV Hawthorne Rd AQMA Princess Way AQMA Without Particulate Trap Source: Merseytravel With Particulate Trap Source: Merseyside Emissions Inventory 2014 The bus accounts for 10.4% of road traffic NOx emissions on Merseyside roads in general; In 2013, 475 buses, or 47% of the Merseyside bus fleet was Euro V standard or better 14% were either Hybrid or Biodiesel vehicles 23

The Bus: Cost Trends in Public Transport Fares, Motoring Costs and the RPI (note bus fares based on costs of single tickets) Single Bus Fare and Average Fare paid trend (Arriva data only). Indexed cost with 2005=100 Source: Merseyside Annual Statistical Monitor Source: Arriva fares, revenue and sales data 2005-2015 Bus single cash fares have increased far more rapidly than rail fares and motoring costs over the past 15 years Motoring costs have been mostly on a par with or lower than the RPI An analysis of bus per journey cost for the full weighted basket of all ticket types purchased (using Arriva data) reveals a less pronounced upward trend in average fare paid per journey 24

Section C: Customer Insight 25

Bus Customers: Consumer Research Headline Conclusions Customer research conducted by Merseytravel in 2014 with a particular focus on ticketing. Most important in the decision as to whether to use public transport or not are: Frequency of services Overall Journey times / reliability Good Value for Money Place you can get off and Comfort of transport are the next most important factors Information on routes, ease of finding out which ticket to buy, ease of buying tickets and availability of integrated tickets are relatively less important but for fewer than 1 in 10 are these not important to any degree In line with this relatively low priority to ticketing is that there is virtually no spontaneous mention of ticketing issues when asked what might encourage greater use of public transport 26

Bus Customers: Views 90% of all bus users in the LCR are satisfied with their overall journey But, this increases to 96% for concessionary pass holders 67% think the bus provides value for money (up from 62% in 2013) 80% think the bus is punctual (up from 77% in 2013) 88% are satisfied with the time their bus journey took 82% are satisfied overall with the bus stop/shelter Source: Passenger Focus Merseyside Results 2014 27

Merseyside Satisfaction 2014 results showed improvements in every single headline and sub-category over 2011 performance The top three drivers of dis-satisfaction were value for money (18% dis-satisfied), litter (12% dis-satisfied), and 10% were dis-satisfied with information at stops, punctuality, and amount of personal space. Bus Passenger Survey, 2014, Passenger Focus 28

Bus Customer Comments 2014/15 Those only received and processed by Merseytravel 89% of complaints result from either service operational issues or staff behaviour Examining the operational issues complaints 35% of these relate to when services are believed to have failed to operate Of the Staff behaviour complaints the vast majority (77%) related to driver (driving) actions Source: Bus Comments 2014/15, Corporate Performance. Merseytravel. Note: The full year 2013/14 saw 2,333 complaints regarding bus services made to Merseytravel. 29

Bus Customer Views Merseytravel s Customer Engagement team undertake a variety of customer forums and surgeries throughout the year The team have identified the following issues as the main concerns that are consistently raised by bus customers in these forums Service characteristics Product characteristics Primary Reliable Driver attitude Frequent Information - fares, destinations, at stop, electronic, real time Journey times Safety Direct links Accessibility Times of service Capacity Good value Simple and "Smart" fares Secondary Comfort - anti-social behaviour, litter, etc Personal benefits - Better seats, air conditioning, wifi etc Buses later, and better weekend timetables Co-ordinated timetables On bus - visual information on where stops are Paper timetables Other Limited stop service options 30

Bus: Infrequent and non-users views Research commissioned by Merseytravel and undertaken by Mott MaccDonald in 2011 found that key underlying reasons that prevented infrequent and non users from making journeys by bus were predominately driven by perceptions of bus travel compared to car travel. Car travel was seen as offering: Quicker journeys Convenience Comfort Bus was seen in a poor light against these criteria and in addition perceived cost and unreliability barriers also existed. The difficulty of carrying shopping was also cited as a significant barrier. Headline findings matched that of national research undertaken by DfT in 2010 Key measures to attract users to the network were noted to be those that addressed: Control issues (real time information, express services, and effective bus priority) Cost (both actual and perceived, addressing difficult issues where new users, and infrequent users can often pay the highest per journey fares) Targeted Promotion and marketing re identified issues Information improvements Doing more, particularly with younger age groups, to sustain bus use through different life stages 31

Section D: Policy Context, Policy Guidance and Best Practice 32

Bus: Policy Context and Policy Guidance Frequent government policy announcements on bus have been made over recent years but at present the Local Transport Act 2008 (building on the Transport Act 2000 and Transport Act 1985) provides the main legislative context for how PTEs and local transport authorities are to work with bus operators. The 2008 act provided a suite of powers and options for improving bus services but the more radical provisions of the act have not yet been exercised The Queens Speech in 2015 set out the intention for a new Buses Bill: The Bill would provide the option for combined authority areas with directly elected Mayors to be responsible for the running of their local bus services. The main elements of the Bill are to be A provision of bus franchising powers, further details will be published in due course. Changes are therefore likely to be deeply embedded in devolution agreements with a heavy emphasis on the importance of local areas identifying the right solutions for them Beyond the legislative framework DfT has sponsored a variety of research, and funding programmes, to encourage investment in good delivery of bus services. Recent examples have included: Better Bus Area Fund Green Bus Fund 33

Bus: Best Practice There is a strong body of research underpinning an industry knowledge of what good bus looks like Key recent research pieces highlighting best practice include: Bus Users UK Good Practice Guide (2014) Greener Journeys Driving Modal Shift From Car to Bus (2014) KPMG / Greener Journeys - Buses, devolution and the growth agenda: A guide to investing in local bus infrastructure (2015) Consistent messages stress the importance of: Joined up whole journey provision Locally appropriate evidenced and monitored solutions High quality, consistent and readily available information Reliable services A further development in policy and best practice has been a growing body of research that highlights the wider economic and social benefits of the bus identifying the significantly expanded economic return from the bus: DfT research undertaken by Mott MacDonald Monetising the social impact of bus travel, 2013 which highlighted Buses and the Economy II (ITS Leeds / Greener Journeys, 2014 Costs and benefits of the Bus Service Operators Grant (KPMG / Greener Journeys 2014) 34