Review of Renfrewshires Public Transport Provision
Renfrewshire Council · 1 May 2024
Back to Leadership Board — 1 May 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
To: LEADERSHIP BOARD On: 01 May 2024 Report by: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE Heading: Review of Renfrewshire’s Public Transport Provision 1. Summary 1.1 At the meeting of the Leadership Board of 26 April 2023, the Board approved recommendations relating to a review of Renfrewshire’s Public Transport provision. The recommendations approved were: that the commencement of the Review of Renfrewshire's Public Transport Provision be noted; that the first stages of the Review as set out in section 5 of the report be noted; agreed that update reports be brought back to this Board; as part of the review, Officers be instructed to engage with the Community Transport Association who had a track record in supporting communities in setting up successful, sustainable not for profit public transport options; that Council called on the Scottish Government to take decisive action to o Reverse the soon to be implemented cuts to Renfrewshire bus services; o Investigate the placing of strict conditions on support to private bus companies; o Look at introducing caps on fares to encourage people to use bus services; and o Move towards bringing local bus services under local authority control 1.2 Officers engaged a transport consultant Systra, to deliver this review on the basis of the recommendations from the Leadership Board with a view to outlining recommendations for how the public transport network in Renfrewshire could be improved for the benefit of the communities of Renfrewshire. 1.3 This report sets out the key stages the consultant considered as part of the review and the local and regional context for the current public transport network as well as looking further afield for any successful models currently in operation elsewhere. 1.4 During this period, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) have also been conducting a Regional review of public transport and have developed a Regional Bus Strategy. The Renfrewshire report links to but is not constrained by the work ongoing at a regional level.
Page 2
SPT’s regional bus strategy is out for consultation at the present time. The strategy presents potential future operating models for the way forward for bus services across the region. The Council intends to submit a response to the consultation and this will be presented to the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board in May, along with the response the Council would intend to submit to SPT a copy of the Systra report ( as attached at appendix 1) to support the development on the strategy for Renfrewshire and the Region. 1.5 The full report is attached as an Appendix to this report but is summarised in some detail at sections 3 to 5 below. 2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Leadership Board: 2.1 Notes the completion of the review and the results of the public consultation highlighted within the report, 2.2 Agrees that officers from Renfrewshire should participate in wider regional discussions on the implications of alternative delivery models for bus services in Renfrewshire, 2.3 Agrees that officers should engage with bus operators and SPT in relation to the development of Bus Service Improvement Partnerships, and 2.4 Notes the positive progress been made with delivering a community transport model for Renfrewshire. 3. Public Transport Network Review 3.1 Background to the Review The overall aim of the review was to assess the current local bus network and understand the range of interventions that may be available to the Council as well as understanding the role that community transport could play in a future model. 3.2 The review is set within the context of national, regional and local policy drivers including; National Transport Strategy 2 (NTS2) – the strategy for Scotland aims to provide fair, easy and affordable access to all through an inclusive, safe and accessible transport system. Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) – the RTS for the west of Scotland covers the period between 2023 and 2028 to ensure the area is well connected with active, liveable communities, facilitated by high quality, sustainable, low carbon transport. SPT Regional Bus Strategy – SPT’s regional bus strategy has been developed and is out for consultation at the present time. The strategy presents potential future operating models for the way forward for bus services across the region as outlined below: o Business As Usual; o Voluntary Partnerships;
Page 3
o Bus Service Improvement Partnerships; o Local Services Franchising; and o Municipal Bus Company The consultation on the regional strategy is open until 13 May 2024 and officers will provide a response to the consultation which will be provided to the next meeting of the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board for approval. We have advised SPT that the response provided by the closing date will be subject to approval of the ILE Board on 29 May 2024. Officers appreciate that this is a topic which generates significant interest and elected members and the general public are encouraged to submit individual responses and the consultation can be accessed at the web address below: www.spt.co.uk/about-us/what-we-are-doing/regional-transport-strategy/bus- strategy/ Local Transport Strategy (LTS) – the Council is developing a new LTS which should be ready for publication in early 2025. The should reflect the key priorities for national and regional strategies but also identify measurable actions that the Council can take to achieve these ambitions. Ren Zero – Sustainable Transport is one of the key themes within the Ren Zero plan and will be a major focus for the organisation as we work towards net zero by 2030. 3.3 Renfrewshire Demographic Context As outlined in Section 2 of the Review Report, bus journeys have been declining in Scotland and the former Strathclyde region have dropped by around 35% since around 2008/09. 3.4 Commuting and retail journeys make up over 50% of all journeys regardless of the mode of travel. bus journey purposes. When considering public transport journeys (bus and rail) commuting to work, the Renfrewshire figure is slightly higher at 16% than the Scottish average of 15%. 3.5 Over a similar timeframe car ownership has significantly increased, with that increase figure in Renfrewshire being around 20%. However, in Renfrewshire, there are currently 25% of households who do not have access to a car, this figure is even more start in lower income SIMD areas where they reach up to 55% and therefore these communities rely on these services to be operating effectively to go about their daily lives. 3.6 Consultation Process One of the key priorities within the review was to consult with the public to better understand the localised experience they have when accessing bus services and to identify the barriers to increasing public transport patronage. 3.7 The public consultation comprised of online and paper based surveys combined with a series of facilitated drop in sessions where the public could speak to Council officers about their concerns on a face to face basis. 3.8 Almost 1,800 responses were received during the consultation period with a summary of the main response issues highlighted below and expanded upon in more detail in the Appendix.
Page 4
Frequency of bus use From the figure below, many of the respondents were those who are frequent bus users with 69% using a bus at least once per week Time of Travel The most frequent time of travel was between 9.30am and 4pm on a weekday, however more than half of the respondents also identified that they travel by bus at the weekend. The graph shows the level of demand there is for services operating in the off peak hours and weekends. Satisfaction with buses in Renfrewshire The overwhelming majority of respondents, 82%, answered that they were dissatisfied to at least some extent with the current provision of bus services in Renfrewshire. The response demographic outlines that bus users were on average more satisfied with services that non users although dissatisfaction reasons could include services no longer being available in certain areas.
Page 5
Reasons for not travelling by bus A variety of responses were given by respondents in relation to the reason why they did not travel by bus with 54% stating it was because bus services did not operate in their area. These were closely followed by 47% stating it was due to access to alternative transport and 42% advising it was due to buses to serving their destination. Measures to encourage more bus journeys As expected, there were a number of improvements that would encourage more people to use bus services on a more regular basis. 75% of respondents advised that more frequent services would encourage them to use the bus as a method of transport. Respondents also offered a number of other points including: 39 respondents advising they would like to see better regulation of bus operators and for them to be held accountable for service levels, 172 respondents felt that increasing competition and having more than one operator in the area would improve the service, and 53 highlighting they would like to see better customer service provided by drivers. In addition to the public consultation document, the drop in sessions produced broadly similar themes with the key problems identified during these sessions highlighted below.
Page 6
3.9 Bus Network Review The bus network in Renfrewshire is dominated by one main bus operator (McGills) being responsible for over 75% of routes in the area, with the second biggest operator (First Glasgow) covering around 10% of the market. 3.10 In Renfrewshire over 80% of the bus network is service by commercial routes with the remaining share being subsidised services, where the route is not financially attractive to an operator but there is a community need and the routes are subsidised through SPT. 3.11 At the current time there are no direct bus services from Bridge of Weir, Kilbarchan and Houston to the Royal Alexandria Hospital or Paisley. 3.12 The frequency of bus services has been analysed over the time periods 2015 – 2019 and 2019 – 2023 in order to understand how bus services had changed before and after the pandemic. The changes were then analysed at different time periods during the day to identify how these changes then impacted services at peak and off peak times. 2019 v 2015 Frequency Between 7am and 9am the majority of routes lost up to 10 buses in the AM period, with reductions noted in key routes such as Paisley to Renfrew, Paisley to Johnstone, Glasgow to Erskine, and Paisley to Bridge of Weir, Between 10am and 3pm the majority of routes lost 10 buses per hour with the Paisley to Johnstone corridor showing a decrease of between 10 and 30 buses per hour. Between 5pm and 7pm the majority of bus routes lost up to 10 buses per hour with some stops in Renfrew showing loss of between 10 and 20 buses per hour. 2023 v 2019 Frequency Between 7am and 9am there were further frequency reductions across a number of Paisley routes, however some routes in Renfrew, Houston, Bridge of Weir and Howwood witnessed frequency increases. Between 10am and 3pm further reductions are noted across Paisley routes with some marginal increase on the Paisley to Johnstone route. The pattern of reduction from 2019 to 2023 continues in to the evening peak with a number of routes showing reductions.
Page 7
3.13 In addition to frequency reductions, some bus routes have been withdrawn by operators. The Scottish Government had utilised a Network Support Grant (NSG) to assist bus operators with their recovery from the impacts of the pandemic. The removal of the NSG coincided with the withdrawal of 6 bus services which served Renfrewshire. 5 of these routes were operated by McGills, with 1 route being operated by First Glasgow. 3.14 Bus Services also play a key role in providing access to employment areas with Paisley, Renfrew, Johnstone and the Airport area being major employment centres. Paisley, Renfrew and Johnstone are all well served with regular bus services, however the airport area only has one service and as a result any cancellations or delays have a major impact. 3.15 Network Review Summary When reviewing the data on services and combining with the outcome from the public consultation process it is clear that there are a number of areas where the bus provision is sub- standard. The main areas affected are: Langbank to Paisley, Dargavel/Bishopton, Erskine to Paisley, Connections to the Royal Alexandria Hospital, and Connections to the Southwest area of Renfrewshire – Houston, Bridge of Weir and Kilbarchan. 3.16 A number of recommendations have been made in pages 67 and 68 of the report, however it should be noted that in the commercial operating market that bus provision is currently provided in, there are limitations on how many of these recommendations the Council can take forward in the short to medium term. 3.17 There is a specific reference to community or demand responsive transport and this is covered in more detail at section 4 of this report. 3.18 Previous engagement with bus operators has resulted in requests from operators for the Council to improve the infrastructure associated with public transport. The main areas that operators have highlighted which they advise would allow them to improve service frequency and reliability are: Provision of dedicated bus priority infrastructure including bus lanes and real traffic light priority systems, Improvements to enforcement of traffic restrictions to reduce private cars being an obstruction to public transport, Removal of on street parking from key bus corridors to support journey time and frequency improvements, and Expansion of real time information infrastructure. 4. Bus Operating Landscape and Opportunities for Change 4.1 Since bus services were deregulated in 1986 the role of local authorities in the delivery of bus services is limited to the provision of infrastructure on the local road network and engagement with the regional transport authority (SPT) to make improvements to services. 4.2 The Council does not have the power to regulate bus operations across its area and it cannot prevent the withdrawal of services.
Page 8
4.3 The current commercial market results in the commercial operators being responsible for bus network planning, bus fares and ticketing arrangements as well has the discretion of integrating their services with other transport modes. 4.4 As a result of this the bus operators have the power to plan and design services whereas the Council is only able to plan routes that are deemed to be required from a social rather than a profitable point of view and this is delivered with support from SPT. 4.5 As outlined at section 3.2 above, SPT’s Regional Bus Strategy has highlighted a number of future potential operating models for the bus network and as part of the Council’s review, Systra have carried out an assessment and options appraisal of the different models available. 4.6 The options considered are: Status Quo – Delivered through a voluntary partnership arrangement which seeks to strengthen current relationship and delivery of joint outcomes. At the current time the Council is already a member of the Glasgow City Region Bus Partnership which is comprised of the eight local authorities, SPT and bus operators in the area. Bus Service Improvement Partnership (BSIP) – This is a new form of statutory agreement that would ensure agreements between operators and a transport authority were binding and can include sanctions if commitments are not adhered to. Bus Franchising Scheme – Franchising moves competition on to a operating contract level rather than on road competition between operators. This provides a greater degree of control over bus service specifications and fares to local transport authorities. The authorities would then procure contracts to deliver the levels of service it requires necessary to meet the needs of communities. Municipal Ownership – As a result of the changes from the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 local transport authorities can create municipally owned bus companies to compete for contracts and operate registered bus services. The municipal operator would likely be an arms-length organisation wholly owned by the authority but providing separation when competing for contracts. The full detail of the appraisal is contained at page 74 of the review report, with a summary provided in the table below: It is agreed within the report that the status quo is not the preferred way forward and is unlikely to have any real effect on improving the bus network in the future. The summary recommendations are that the alternative models should be explored and in order to derive the most significant improvements to the network, these should be considered at a regional level.
Page 9
5. Community Transport 5.1 There are a number of circumstances where community transport can play a role in the delivery of vital transport services for local communities, particularly where users cannot access public transport because of mobility issues or there is a lack of service provision in their area. 5.2 Council officers have been working with a number of different community groups who have expressed an interest in starting a community transport organisation. This work has resulted in the creation of a group called Renfrewshire Community Transport. They are now a Scottish charitable incorporated organisation and have been successful in securing £25,000 funding from the Sustainable Communities fund to develop a business plan to identify a way forward for delivering a community transport model in Renfrewshire. 5.3 Council officers will continue to support the organisation and will provide resources to create a robust business plan that can then be adopted by other organisations in the future. 6. Next Steps 6.1 It is clear from the report that there are options to consider for the future direction of the public transport landscape in the future, however there are some more short-term actions that the Council can set out to achieve in order to improve services for local communities whilst awaiting more fundamental model change. 6.2 Council officers will review the infrastructure provided for local bus services and identify where there are opportunities for delivering improvements. It is however worth noting that the SPT capital programme for 2024/25 has been reduced to £0 so there is little scope for delivering infrastructure improvements in 2024/25. 6.3 Officers will also respond to the SPT Regional Bus Strategy consultation, however given the varying personal opinions on the issue elected members may be keen to provide individual responses also.
Page 10
Implications of this Report 1. Financial – Although the expected financial impact of alternative models for bus service delivery cannot be quantified at the current time it is anticipated that a franchising model could require significant additional public expenditure to deliver. 2. HR and Organisational Development – none 3. Community Planning Our Renfrewshire is thriving / Reshaping our place, our economy and our future – By continuing to support public transport improvements we will continue to facilitate access to employment and economic growth. 4. Legal – none 5. Property/Assets – none 6. Information Technology – none 7. Equality & Human Rights - The recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report. If required following implementation, the actual impact of the recommendations and the mitigating actions will be reviewed and monitored, and the results of the assessment will be published on the Council’s website. 8. Health and Safety – none. 9. Procurement – none. 10. Risk – none. 11. Privacy Impact – none. 12. Cosla Policy Position – none. 13. Climate Impact – Delivering an improved public transport service for communities across Renfrewshire should result in a decrease in private car mileage which is a major contributor to emissions across the area. List of Background Papers - none Author Gordon McNeil, Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure e-mail: gordon.mcneil@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 11
Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Study Report
Page 12
3 1. Background to the Study ▪ Aims and Objectives ▪ Policy Review 2. Demographic Context ▪ Population and Socio-economic Data ▪ Bus Journeys, Car Ownership and Travel to Work data 3. Consultation ▪ Online Survey ▪ Public Drop-in Sessions 4. Network Analysis ▪ Existing Bus Market and Core Services ▪ Change in Bus Routes and Frequency ▪ Service Withdrawal ▪ Accessibility Gaps ▪ Bus Priority Measures 5. Alternatives for Change ▪ Current Operational Model ▪ Bus Partnership and Reform Options ▪ Comparison of Operational Models ▪ Appraisal of Bus Partnership and Reform Options ▪ Costs and Revenues of Delivery Models ▪ Recommendations 6. Community Transport ▪ Existing Situation ▪ Demand for Community Transport ▪ Proposal for Community Transport 7. Actions to Take Forward Contents Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 13
LA CONFIANCE TRANSPORTE LE MONDE Background to the Study Section 1
Page 14
5 Aims and Objectives of the Study ▪ Aims ▪ Undertake a review of local bus network in Renfrewshire and advise on the range of interventions now available to the Council to tackle any perceived shortfalls, including the potential role of the community transport sector. ▪ Objectives ▪ Identify gaps in local bus services ▪ Identify user (and non-user) needs and perceptions ▪ Identify potential solutions to improve bus provision Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 15
6 Policy Overview The Renfrewshire Bus Network Review is set within the context of the goals and objectives set out by national, regional and local policies. Below is a summary of the policies and strategies that are relevant to this study. National Policy National Transport Strategy 2 (NTS2) Scotland’s National Transport Strategy 2 (NTS2) envisage to have a sustainable, inclusive, safe and accessible transport system, helping deliver a healthier, fairer and more prosperous Scotland for communities, businesses and visitors. To this end, NTS2 sets out priorities that include- ▪ Reduce inequalities ▪ Will provide fair access to services we need ▪ Will be easy to use for all ▪ Will be affordable for all ▪ Take climate change action ▪ Identify gaps in local bus services ▪ Identify user (and non-user) needs and perceptions ▪ Identify potential solutions to improve bus provision Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Figure 1 : Sustainable travel hierarchy
Page 16
7 Regional Policy Regional Transport Strategy The Regional Transport Strategy for the west of Scotland 2023-2038 aims to make the west of Scotland “an attractive, resilient and well- connected place with active, liveable communities and accessible, vibrant centres facilitated by high quality, sustainable and low carbon transport shaped by the needs of all”. The following objectives of the RTS emphasise on the need for public transport improvement in the region to achieve its strategic vision. ▪ To improve accessibility, affordability, availability and safety of the transport system, ensuring everyone can get to town centres, jobs, education, healthcare and other everyday needs ▪ To reduce carbon emissions and other harmful pollutants from transport in the region ▪ To make public transport a desirable and convenient travel choice for everyone Strathclyde Regional Bus Strategy-Draft Case for Change ▪ The Regional Bus Strategy draft case for change aims “To provide a world class bus network which reverses the long-term decline in travel by bus, by developing a more efficient bus system which is fully integrated with other public transport, affordable to all and plays a key role in the social, environmental and economic development of the region”. The SRBS sets out three key objectives- ▪ Increase Network Coverage ▪ Increase affordability of bus network ▪ Increase attractiveness of the bus network Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Policy Overview
Page 17
8 Local Policy Key local Transport policies and strategies that identify public transport improvements as crucial for sustainable growth are discussed below. Renfrewshire Local Transport Strategy Renfrewshire is currently developing a new Local Transport Strategy (LTS). The 2017 LTS Refresh states the key objectives including- ▪ Extend opportunities for all by: ▪ Combating poverty and promoting equality including ▪ Supporting behavioural change; ▪ Encouraging healthier lifestyles; ▪ Encouraging a choice of transport options; ▪ Improving access for all, including the mobility impaired. ▪ Encourage integration of services and an integrated approach by public bodies whilst achieving best value Renfrewshire Economic Strategy 2020-2030 The Economic Strategy aims “To improve the economic infrastructure of Renfrewshire including better public transport provision, rail and road capacity, and the provision of new digital connectivity and networks”. It recognises the need for interventions that influence travel behaviours and modal shift including public transport improvement, exemplary networks for walking and cycling, park and ride and demand management measures for private car use. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Policy Overview
Page 18
9 Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2021 Renfrewshire LDP 2021 supports investment which assists sustainable communities by ensuring people and places are well connected through access to a range of travel and transport networks. In particular, new developments “on sites which can be accessed sustainably to encourage a modal shift from the private car to walking, cycling and public transport”. The LDP also aims to support sustainable economic growth by delivering high quality development with “good accessibility to a range of sustainable travel modes, based on links to the hierarchy of walking, cycling, public transport networks and ensuring integration with the design and layout of the development and the wider network”. Renfrewshire’s Plan for Net Zero ‘Sustainable Transport’ is one of the Key Themes and Actions within Renfrewshire’s Plan for Net Zero. The Priority areas for this theme include-Extend opportunities for all by: ▪ Maximise active travel opportunities; ▪ Increase public transport patronage; ▪ Minimise car miles; ▪ Enable modal shift to Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs); ▪ Alleviate transport poverty; and ▪ Local carbon offsetting: to make every trip in the Renfrewshire area net zero carbon. Improvements to public transport provision will help increase patronage and minimise car distance kilometres. This will contribute to reduction in carbon emission and help alleviate transport poverty. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Policy Overview
Page 19
10 Legislation The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 This review takes cognisance of the Transport Act 2019 and the powers given to local authorities related to bus operations, intended to give local transport authorities more flexibility to respond to their own transport challenges. These include- ▪ Provision of bus services etc. by local transport authorities ▪ Bus services improvement partnerships ▪ Franchising frameworks and franchise agreements ▪ Provision of service information when varying or cancelling registration ▪ Smart and integrated ticketing ▪ Provision of information about bus services Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 20
LA CONFIANCE TRANSPORTE LE MONDE Demographic Context Section 2
Page 21
12 Renfrewshire Population Population ▪ 2022 Census - 183,800, an increase of 9,000 from 2011 ▪ Male - 48.4% ; Female - 51.6% (2021 estimate) ▪ Renfrewshire population by age group (2021 estimate): Ageing Population ▪ 17% are under 16; 12% are 16 to 24; 54% are 25 to 64; and 19% are 65 or over. ▪ 65 and over age groups have grown since 2011, while the proportion of the population under 24 has dropped. Ethnicity ▪ The Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) population accounts for 2.8% of the overall local population. This equates to 4,781 people. Of these: ▪ 65% are Asian; 17% are African; 9% are from multiple ethnic backgrounds; 2% Caribbean; and 7% from other ethnic groups. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options 29,784 17,798 46,950 50,823 19,047 15,538 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 0 to 15 16 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 to 74 75 and over People Age Group Population by Age Group (NRS Mid-Year Estimate for 2021) -2.70% -9.40% 3.90% 2.30% 17.80% 15.40% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0 to 15 16 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 to 74 75 and over % Change Age Group Population % Change by Age Group (2011-2021, NRS Mid-Year Estimate) Figure 2(a,b): Age profile and population change in Renfrewshire (a) (b)
Page 22
13 Socio-Economic Data Deprivation Figure 3 shows Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) in Renfrewshire. Most deprived areas are- ▪ Paisley ▪ Renfrew ▪ Johnstone ▪ Linwood It is estimated that in 2019/20 6,997 (23.1%) children in Renfrewshire were living in poverty after housing costs. This is almost 1 in every 4 children. (Renfrewshire Health and Social Care Partnership) Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Linwood Figure 3: Level of deprivation in Renfrewshire Paisley
Page 23
14 Historical Data Passenger Journeys Historical data shows that bus journeys in Scotland have been declining over the years (Figure 4). In Southwest and Strathclyde region, bus passenger journeys dropped by about 35% between 2008-09 and 2019- 20. Travel to Work and Other Purposes Table 1 shows percentage of trips by purposes and Commute and shopping trips make up more than half of all journeys. Travel to work data 2019 in Table 2 shows that a similar proportion of people in Renfrewshire (16.0%) use public transport for commuting compared with the national average (15.0%). 2011 household survey data show that 62.4% of employed people in Scotland travelled to work by car. This implies that a majority of the commute trips in Renfrewshire are also made by cars. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options % Business Journeys % Commuting Journeys % Education Journeys % Health Journeys % Shopping Journeys Scotland 2.4 23.3 5.6 2.2 23.6 Renfrewshire 2.0 24.0 5.0 3.0 30.0 % Bus Journeys To Work % Cycling Journeys To Work % Train Journeys To Work % Walking Journeys To Work Scotland 9.6 2.7 5.4 12.0 Renfrewshire 10 1.0 6.0 4.0 Table 1: Percentage of trips by purpose in Renfrewshire and Scotland Table 2: Travel to work by mode in Renfrewshire and Scotland Figure 4: Change in total passenger journeys (Source: Department for Transport)
Page 24
15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 % Of Households with no Access to a Car Year Households with no Access to a Car Renfrewshire Car Ownership Renfrewshire Car Ownerships Figure 5 shows that car ownerships in Renfrewshire have increased by about 20% between 1999 and 2021. Currently there are 25% households who do not have access to a car. Table 3 below gives an indication of the specific Intermediate Zones with the highest percentage of households without access to a car, for within the bottom 2 deciles for SIMD Income Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table 3: Car ownership level areas in low-income areas Locality Name Percentage without a car Origin TTW Percentage travelling to work by bus Linwood 53.9% 19.8% Renfrew 55.9% 15.5% Paisley 60.0% 13.0% Johnstone 55.3% 11.0% Zone Name Income Decile Percentage without a car S02002263 Paisley Ferguslie 1.9 55.0% S02002277 Paisley Gallowhill and Hillington 1.7 51.9% S02002259 Johnstone Northwest 1.5 50.0% Table 4: Travel to work by bus in low car ownership areas Bus Reliance For Travel to Work Table 4 shows the localities in Renfrewshire with the highest travel to work by bus mode share. This table is ordered by origin percentage travelling to work by bus. Nearly 20% of commute trips from Linwood are made by bus which is almost twice the national average (10.4%). Figure 5: Household with no access to cars (Source: Statistics.gov.scot)
Page 25
LA CONFIANCE TRANSPORTE LE MONDE Consultation Section 3
Page 26
17 Introduction Public consultation has been undertaken using an online questionnaire survey and public drop-in sessions in Renfrewshire. ▪ Online Survey ▪ A questionnaire survey was developed and disseminated via Renfrewshire council website, social media and targeted emails to community councils. Paper surveys were available on request. The survey was anonymous and included questions regarding the level of bus usage. ▪ Public Drop-In Sessions ▪ Public drop-in sessions were held at five selected locations around Renfrewshire. The sessions were facilitated by a team of two members, one each from SYSTRA and Renfrewshire Council. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 27
18 Online Survey As part of this review, Renfrewshire Council undertaken an online survey between Friday 20th October 2023 and Friday 24th November 2023, to gather views from Renfrewshire residents. The survey aimed to understand local views towards the bus network and identify any gaps in provisions/barriers to bus use. The survey was designed by SYSTRA Ltd and hosted (online) and publicised by Renfrewshire Council through different channels, including on their website, social media and targeted emails to community councils. A total of two hundred posters were displayed on prominent bus stops and on-board buses (Figure 6), and residents were also able to complete the survey at a number of drop-in sessions held across Renfrewshire. The survey was anonymous and was open to all residents, regardless of their level of bus use. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Figure 6: Renfrewshire bus survey poster
Page 28
19 Online Survey Sample Profile A total of 1,787 responses were received during the survey period. Participants were self-selecting but covered a mix of demographic types. Figure 7 shows that the majority of the sample identified as women (71%), whilst around three in ten respondents identified as men (28%). A higher-than-average proportion of women completed the survey compared to the average in Renfrewshire (71% vs 52%1). Just over a third of respondents fell within the 35-54 age category (35%), followed by a quarter of respondents who were aged between 55 and 65 (26%), and a fifth who fell within the 66-79 age category (20%). Just 2% of the sample were aged 80 or older. These figures are broadly representative of the age profile within Renfrewshire. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options AGE GENDER Which age group do you fall within? (n=1,781) Which of the following best describes your gender? (n=1,772) 1% 28% 71% I use another term Man Woman 2% 21% 26% 35% 16% 80 and older 66 - 79 55 - 65 35 - 54 18 - 34 1,787 1Scotland’s Census 2022, National Records of Scotland Figure 7: Survey sample characteristics in terms of Gender and Age
Page 29
20 Online Survey Sample Profile Figure 8 shows that a fifth of the sample reported that the Equality Act definition of a disabled person applied to them (21%). This is representative of the proportion of disabled people in Renfrewshire. 60% of the respondents did not have any concessionary bus pass. Majority of the bus pass holders were elderly people (60+). Just under half of the respondents have access to a car or van as a driver (47%), while 1% have access to a motorbike or moped. Just over half of the respondents reported not having access to any of these vehicles as a driver (52%). Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options MOBILITY BUS PASS VEHICLE ACCESS [Equality Act description of a disabled person] Does this definition apply to you? (n=1,766) What type of Scottish National Entitlement Card do you have? (n=1,787) Do you have access to a car, van, motorbike or moped as a driver? (n=1,787) Yes, 21% No, 79% 60% 4% 7% 29% None Young Persons' NEC Disabled NEC 60+ NEC 1% 47% 52% Motorbike Car/van None Figure 8: Survey sample characteristics in terms of Mobility, Bus Pass, and Vehicle access
Page 30
21 Online Survey Frequency of Bus Use 92% of respondents have travelled by bus within the last year, while 69% respondents are travelling by bus at least once a week (Figure 9). Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Q4. During 2023, how often have you used this mode (bus) on average? N= 1,787 31% 28% 10% 10% 8% 5% 8% 5 days a week or more 2-4 days a week About once a week Less than once a week, but at least once or twice a month Less than once a month, but more than twice a year Once or twice a year Never OVERALL SUMMARY ▪ Many respondents are frequent bus users, with nearly a third (31%) travelling 5 days a week or more. ▪ 69% travel by bus frequently (at least once a week), 23% are less frequent users (less than once a week but at least once a year), whilst 8% never travel by bus. Figure 9: Participants’ frequency of bus use
Page 31
22 Online Survey Time of Travel As show in Figure 10, when travelling by bus, the most popular time to travel was between 9.30 and 4pm on a weekday, and at the weekends. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Q5. When travelling by bus, what time(s) of day do you tend to travel? N= 1,644 OVERALL SUMMARY ▪ The most frequent time of travel by bus was between 9.30 and 4pm on a weekday (n=970, 59%). ▪ More than half of the respondents (56%) also reported that they travel by bus at the weekend. ▪ More than a fifth of the respondents travel late in the evening (between 7pm and 11 pm) This demonstrates their reliance on buses in the off- peak hours and weekends. 47% 59% 42% 22% 5% 56% Before 9.30am on a weekday Between 9.30am and 4pm on a weekday Between 4pm and 7pm on a weekday Between 7pm and 11pm on a weekday After 11pm on a weekday Weekend at any time Figure 10: Participants’ time of travel by bus
Page 32
23 Online Survey Satisfaction with buses in Renfrewshire Generally, respondents are dissatisfied with the provision of buses within Renfrewshire. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Q9. When travelling by bus, what time(s) of day do you tend to travel? N= 1,644 OVERALL SUMMARY ▪ The majority of respondents (82%) answered they were dissatisfied to some extent with the current provision of buses (Figure 11). Very satisfied, 2% Somewhat satisfied, 8% Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 6% Somewhat dissatisfied, 26% Very dissatisfied, 57% TRENDS BY RESPONDENT PROFILE ▪ Bus users were slightly more likely to be satisfied than non-users (11% vs 2%). ▪ Scottish NEC owners were more likely to be satisfied than those without (15% vs 8%)Figure 11: Bus user satisfaction
Page 33
24 Suggested Improvements Respondents were invited to provide further comments as to how bus provision in Renfrewshire could be improved. 1,058 respondents chose to make further comments, and these have been categorised as follows: Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Specific route improvemen ts (882 comments) Reliability and timing improvemen ts (667 comments) Operator specific (272 comments) Impact of bus travel (86 comments) Other improvemen ts (63 comments)
Page 34
25 Non-users: Reasons for not travelling by bus The main reasons for not using the bus are due to buses either not operating from respondents’ origins or to their chosen destinations. Having alternative transport was also one of the main reasons for not travelling by bus. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Q10. You mentioned that you have not travelled by bus within the last year. Why is this? N= 143 OVERALL SUMMARY ▪ Respondents said they do not travel by bus due to buses not operating in their area (54%) or to their destination (42%) (Figure 12). . ▪ Meanwhile 47% said they had alternative transport e.g. car. ▪ Male respondents were more likely to select ‘long journey times’ (38% vs 17%) or access to alternative transport (62% vs 42%). 4% 5% 9% 14% 14% 14% 16% 21% 21% 25% 42% 47% 54% Accessibility issues Difficulty in accessing info online Fear of COVID/illness Buses unreliable (cancellations) Lack of fare information Bus is too expensive Buses do not run on time Bus journey times are too long Prefer the comfort of other modes Lack of flexibility and convenience Buses do not serve my destination I have alternative transport e.g. car Buses do not operate in my area Figure 12: Participants’ reasons for not travelling by bus
Page 35
26 Improvements to encourage more bus journeys Respondents said that more frequent services, improved reliability and more bus routes would be most likely to encourage bus journeys. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Q11. What improvements to bus travel would most likely encourage you to make more journeys by bus? (Select up to five) N= 1,787 OVERALL SUMMARY ▪ 75% respondents said that more frequent services would encourage them to use the bus, alongside more bus routes (60%) (Figure 13). ▪ Reliability is also an important factor, with 67% wanting more reliable services and 43% selecting ‘fewer cancellations’. ▪ Disabled people were more likely to want improved on-board accessibility (17% vs 2%), and males were more likely to selected improved integration (28% vs 17%). 2% 2% 3% 5% 6% 9% 10% 13% 20% 25% 34% 43% 60% 67% Covid reassurances Nothing Ticketing improvements Improved on-board accessibility More comfortable on-board Improved personal safety Other Improved waiting facilities Improved integration with other modes Improved timetables/service information Cheaper fares Fewer cancellations More bus routes Buses running more reliably on time Other included earlier/later and weekend services (34), improved driver customer service (18), and more competition from other operators (17) Figure 13: Improvements desired by the participants
Page 36
27 Suggested improvements - Routes Renfrewshire Bus Survey Findings 50 respondents commented that they do not have a local bus service. 188 respondents commented that they did have a route, but it was either withdrawn or changed. Many respondents suggested locations where they felt bus routes were required: Braehead Shopping Centre (32) Erskine to Paisley / Renfrew (87) “The no 22 Erskine/Paisley route is sorely missed. It was a great service”. Dargavel / Bishopton (73) “Dargavel village is a growing village however the transport facilities are very poor”. Gallowhill Loop (36) Royal Alexandra Hospital (73) “It would be much better to be able to get to appointments easier and without worry of missing a bus”. Kilbarchan (35) Houston (38) Bridge of Weir (31) Langbank (38) Johnston (34) N=1,058 that provided further comments. Number of comments made about each area is provided in brackets. Figure 14: Location of improvements suggested by participants
Page 37
28 Suggested improvements – Reliability/timing Renfrewshire Bus Survey Findings MORE FREQUENT SERVICES 166 respondents commented that they would like to see more frequent bus services. Some commented that there is one bus every 1 or 2 hours and would appreciate a half- hourly service during peak times. “ Cancellations were also an issue for many, with 151 commenting on this. There is also frustration around (lack of) communication of cancellations. The current bus service is not working for most people with fewer buses and restricted times. “ “ FEWER CANCELLATIONS SERVICES RUNNING LATER/EARLIER AND/OR AT WEEKENDS 119 respondents commented that they would like to see services starting earlier in the morning or later in the evening, and more frequent services at weekends. 95 respondents said they want a more reliable bus service and buses to run on time. MORE RELIABLE SERVICES Why have an information board at a bus stop when they do not turn up on time or it is a no show. “ “ More routes and more frequent buses. Where I live the buses stop running after 7pm. “ “
Page 38
29 Suggested improvements – Operator Renfrewshire Bus Survey Findings GREATER COMPETITION REQUIRED Many respondents (172) felt that increasing competition and having more than one operator in the area, would improve the service provided. 53 respondents commented that they would like to see better customer service provided by drivers. CUSTOMER SERVICE “ Stop monopolising services, competition makes for a more cost effective and improved product for consumers. “ Why have an information board at a bus stop when they do not turn up on time or it is a no show. “ “ With a lack of railway lines in Erskine and Renfrew, these towns are particularly left to the whims of the solitary bus provider. ““ 39 respondents said they would like to see better regulation of operators. Some felt that operators should be held accountable for poor service, and some voiced frustration at complaints not being dealt with to their satisfaction. REGULATION
Page 39
30 Renfrewshire Bus Survey Findings A smaller number of respondents made comments related to other areas, including communication/information, ticketing, and integration with rail: ▪ 43 comments related to a request for improved communication/information, particularly when services are delayed and cancelled. Lack of information when a bus is cancelled or late is perceived to add to frustrations of customers. “ When buses don't come there is no information as to why and if the next one will appear. “ ▪ 43 comments from respondents who feel the cost of travelling bus is too high for the service received. ▪ 24 respondents commented that they would like to see better integration with the rail network, whilst 14 comments were related to requests for integrated tickets. “ Having a connected transport system without needing to pay for separate travel fares. “ “Bus provision has to be reimagined as a true public service. I think the status quo is failing and that we need new thinking, and expert driven solutions. “ Suggested improvements – Information, Fares and Ticketing
Page 40
31 Impact of Sub-standard Bus Provision Renfrewshire Bus Survey Findings Some respondents commented on the impact that a good or bad bus service can have: Social exclusion / isolation Personal safety Access to services / jobs Mental health / stress Environmental benefits Some felt that removal/change to services had led to some groups (particularly older/disabled people) becoming isolated Some respondents commented that a poor service has a negative impact on their mental health and they’ve felt stressed due to cancelled services For some, an improved bus service would encourage them to get rid of their car and would have a positive impact on the environment. Respondents commented that a frequent and reliable bus service would help improve access to jobs. Many commented that cancelled services late at night had a negative impact on their personal safety due to having to either wait in the dark or walk home The bus frequency and routes have been cut and this is sometimes the only way elderly or disabled people can travel.“ “ It is very unsafe due to late or no- show busses, especially in the darker evenings.“ “
Page 41
32 Frequency 92% respondents have used the bus within the last year Covid changes travel by bus more since the Covid-19 pandemic 39% Satisfaction 83% respondents are dissatisfied with the current bus provision Key take outs Renfrewshire Bus Survey Findings Base: 1,787 Base: 1,787 Base: 1,787
Page 42
33 Non-bus reasons 54% don’t travel by bus due to lack of services in their area Improvements respondents would travel more if services were more frequent 75% Improvements 67% would travel more if reliability was improved Key take outs Renfrewshire Bus Survey Findings Base: 143 Base: 1,787 Base: 1,787
Page 43
34 Public Drop In Sessions To reach out to members of the public who unable to take the online survey or who feel more comfortable speaking to a member of the team, SYSTRA jointly with Renfrewshire Council undertook five public drop-in sessions around Renfrewshire. The locations were selected in liaison with the council’s communications team, making sure that each location captures a certain geographic area. Two of the five sessions were run until late evening to allow people to drop in after work. Table 5 presents the schedule, locations and number of attendees in each session. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options DATE TIME LOCATION FACILITATORS NO. OF ATTENDEES 30th October 2023 10:00 to 16:00 Erskine Library, Bridgewater Place, Erskine, PA8 7AA Faqhrul Islam (SYSTRA) Ian Black (Renfrewshire Council) 34 31st October 2023 13:00 to 19:30 Lagoon Leisure Centre, 11 Christie St, Paisley PA1 1NB Faqhrul Islam (SYSTRA) Mark Higginbotham (Renfrewshire Council) 25 1st November 2023 13:00 to 19:30 Braehead Shopping Centre, King's Inch Rd, Renfrew G51 4BN Junaid Sahi (SYSTRA) Ian Black and Stephen Heron (Renfrewshire Council) 6 2nd November 2023 10:00 to 16:00 Cargill Hall, Lintwhite Cres, Bridge of Weir PA11 3LJ Craig Gow (SYSTRA) Ian Black (Renfrewshire Council) 4 3rd November 2023 10:00 to 16:00 Johnstone Community Library, 25 Church St, Johnstone PA5 8FA Craig Gow (SYSTRA) Ian Black (Renfrewshire Council) 35 Table 5: Drop-in sessions schedule
Page 44
35 Public Drop-In Sessions- Key Problems Identified In the drop-in sessions, participants were asked about their experience of bus journeys. Conversations with the participants revealed the following key problems with existing bus provision Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Poor/ Reduced Frequency •Short notice cancellations •Leaves people stranded Unreliability •Buses don’t show up •Delayed buses Hours of Operation •Service stops early in the evening •No services on Sunday Access to Network •Long walk to bus stops •No services in some areas Journey Time and interchanges •Long journey time for some trips •2 or more interchanges for some key trips Inaccurate Information •Some services are not shown on electronic displays •Incoming buses suddenly disappears from the app On-board Safety •School Kids do not move for others •Antisocial behaviour has been witnessed on buses Crowdedness •Overcrowded due to School Pupils •A passenger had panic attack and had to get off.
Page 45
36 Bus Cancellations •Short notice cancellations •Leaves people stranded Service Withdrawal •Number 20, 22, 54 removed •Number 64- replaced with 7A Unsatisfactory Driver Behaviour •Rude behaviour •Starts driving before elderly people settle down Operator Reluctant to Improve •Lack of competition between operators •Don’t communicate, and do not attend council meetings Unaffordable fares •Long journey time for some trips •2 or more interchanges for some key trips Multiple Tickets •Need single tickets for one trip with transfers •Incoming buses suddenly disappears from the app Poor Bus Stop Facilities •Lack of benches at busy stops •Access to buses is difficult due to low kerbs Bus Bunching •45-minute waits, bunches of buses all coming at once •Service 26 too many buses, frequency too high, sometimes 3 buses in minutes Public Drop-In Sessions- Key Problems Identified Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 46
LA CONFIANCE TRANSPORTE LE MONDE Network Analysis Section 4
Page 47
38 Existing Bus Operators ▪ Figure 15 shows that McGill's is the main bus operator in Renfrewshire with over 75% of the Weekly Total Revenue Distance. First Glasgow is the second biggest operator covering around 10% of revenue distance. ▪ 81% of the network is served by commercial services and 19% by subsidised services. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Figure 15: Bus operators market share in Renfrewshire
Page 48
39 Subsidised services Figure 16 Shows the bus routes in Renfrewshire that are subsidised by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Paisley Figure 16: SPT subsidised routes in Renfrewshire
Page 49
40 Core Service Routes Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table 6: Core service routes in Renfrewshire No. Description Connects Type of Route First Service Last Service Service Frequency Peak Interpeak Saturday Sunday 26 Nethercraigs - Glasgow Glenburn, Potterhill, Paisley Centre, Gallowhill, Porterfield, Renfrew, Braehead Shopping Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Govan, Glasgow Central Core 05:22 23:02 8- 10mins 8mins 7-15mins 10- 30mins 38 Johnstone to Glasgow Kilbarchan, Cochrane Castle, Spateston, Johnstone, Elderslie, Paisley Centre, Whitehaugh, Ibrox, Glasgow Central Core 05:05 22:28 8mins 8mins 8mins 20mins 23 Erskine to Glasgow Bargarran, Erskine Library, Park Mains, Inchinaan, Braehead Shopping Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Govan, Glasgow Central, Buchanan Bus Station Core 04:58 22:31 15mins 30mins 20-30mins 30mins X23 Erskine to Glasgow Bargarran, Erskine Library, Park Mains, Inchinnan, Braehead Shopping Centre, Glasgow Central, Buchanan Bus Station Express 05:55 19:55 20mins 30mins 30mins - 757 Paisley to Clydebank Bus Station Paisley Centre, Inchinnan, Park Mains, Erskine, Dalmuir, Clydebank Bus Station Principal 05:27 23:00 30mins 30mins 30mins 60mins 17 Foxbar to Queen Elizabeth University Hospital Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley Town Centre & Cardonald Principal 05:59 20:00 30mins 30mins 30mins - 61 Paisley Town Centre to Foxbar Paisley town centre & Lounsdale Road Core 05:25 23:30 10mins 10mins 10-20mins 20mins No direct bus from Bridge of Weir, Kilbarchan and Houston to RAH or Paisley
Page 50
41 Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table 7: Services that stop early in the evening No. Description Connects Type of Route First Service Last Service Service Frequency Peak Interpeak Saturday Sunday 70 Paisley – Lochfield (SPT Subsidised) Seedhill, Hunterhill, Dykebar, Lochfield 09:55 16:24 60mins 60mins 60mins - 1 Johnstone Station - Kilmacolm (SPT Subsidised) Brookfield, Bridge of Weir, Quarriers Village 08:23 16:23 120mins 120mins 120mins - 1A Linwood, Houston, Bridge of Weir, Quarriers Village 07:19 15:19 120mins 120mins 120mins 2/2A Johnstone Station - Johnstone Station (SPT Subsidised) Circular serving Brookfield, Bridge of Weir, Houston, Linwood 06:37 17:56 60mins 60mins 60mins - 521 Erskine- Bishopton Station (SPT Subsidised) Mains Hill, Linburn 07:44 18:38 60mins 60mins 60mins - 6 Silverburn - Paisley Nitshill, Hurlet, Lonend 07:31 17:48 60mins 60mins 60mins - 10 Hawkhead Estate - Royal Alexandra Hospital Ben Nevis Estate, Seedhill, Paisley Town Centre, RAH 08:45 17:45 60mins 60mins 60mins - 30 Johnstone - Spateston Johnstone, Corseford , Spateston 06:45 18:08 60mins 60mins 60mins - There is only one night service- N38 Glasgow – Paisley on weekends from 00:30 to 03:30 Early Finishing and Night Services
Page 51
42 Changes in Bus Routes Changes in bus routes have been investigated using GIS mapping of bus network exported from PODARIS for different years. We present a comparison between 2015 and 2019 to understand changes in the network in the pre-Covid years. A year-by-year comparison shows marginal change; hence it was deemed appropriate to present results across multiple years. Note that some areas are served by multiple bus routes, hence it may not be possible to identify the removal or addition of a specific service from this network comparison if the area is served by other routes. 2019 vs 2015 Bus Networks Network Loss (in blue) The Figure 17 shows the comparison between 2019 and 2015 bus network in Renfrewshire. Blue lines show the bus routes that existed in 2015 but not in 2019. Note that this does not indicate any change in the bus frequency or re-routing of bus routes. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Figure 17: Loss of bus routes in 2019 compared with 2015 Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Paisley
Page 52
43 Changes in Bus Routes 2015 vs 2019 Bus Networks Network Gain (in orange) The Figure 18 shows the comparison between 2019 and 2015 bus network in Renfrewshire. Orange lines show the bus routes that did not exist in 2015 but do exist in 2019. Note that this does not indicate any change in the bus frequency or re-routing of bus routes. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Paisley Figure 18: Gain in bus routes in 2019 compared with 2015
Page 53
44 Changes in Bus Routes We also present a comparison between 2015 and 2023 to understand changes in the network over the 8-year period. Note that some areas are served by multiple bus routes, hence it may not be possible to identify the removal or addition of a specific service from this network comparison if the area is served by other routes. 2023 vs 2015 Bus Networks Network Loss (in green) The Figure 19 shows the comparison between 2023 and 2015 bus network in Renfrewshire. Green lines show the bus routes that existed in 2015 but not in 2023. Note that this does not indicate any change in the bus frequency or re- routing of bus routes. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Figure 19: Loss of bus routes in 2023 compared with 2015 Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Paisley
Page 54
45 Changes in Bus Routes 2015 vs 2023 Bus Networks Network Gain (in purple) The Figure 20 shows the comparison between 2015 and 2023 bus network in Renfrewshire. Purple lines show the bus routes that did not exist in 2015 but do exist in 2023. Note that this does not indicate any change in the bus frequency or re-routing of bus routes. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Figure 20: Gain in bus routes in 2023 compared with 2015 Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Paisley
Page 55
46 Changes in Bus Frequency To understand changes in bus frequencies, we undertook frequency analysis at stops during different time periods. Average buses per hour (bph) at stops were compared between 2015 and 2019, and then between 2019 and 2023. This is deemed appropriate as it demonstrates how bus frequencies have changed before and after the COVID pandemic. Figure 21 shows change in average buses per hour (bph) at stops between 2019 and 2015 in the AM period, i.e. 7am to 9pm. Majority of the routes lost up to 10 buses in the AM period. Key routes with frequency reductions are- ▪ Paisley - Renfrew ▪ Paisley- Johnstone-Kilbarchan ▪ Glasgow-Erskine ▪ Paisley – Potterhill ▪ Paisley- Bridge of Weir Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Paisley Figure 21: Change in average bph at stops between 2019 and 2015 in the AM period
Page 56
47 Changes in Bus Frequency Figure 22 shows majority of the routes lost up to 10 bph in the interpeak period. Paisley- Johnstone corridor shows loss of 10 to 30 bph during this period. Some frequency gain are found within Foxbar area. Key routes with frequency reductions are- ▪ Paisley – Renfrew- Erskine ▪ Paisley- Johnstone-Kilbarchan ▪ Paisley – Potterhill ▪ Paisley- Neilston (Cross-boundary) Key routes with frequency increase are- ▪ Paisley – Foxbar Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Paisley Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Figure 22: Change in average bph at stops between 2019 and 2015 in the interpeak period
Page 57
48 Changes in Bus Frequency Figure 23 shows that the majority of the routes lost up to 10 bph in the PM period. Some stops in Renfrew show loss of 10 to 20bph during this period. Key routes with frequency reductions are- ▪ Paisley – Renfrew- Erskine ▪ Paisley- Glasgow ▪ Paisley- Johnstone-Kilbarchan ▪ Paisley – Potterhill ▪ Paisley- Houston ▪ Paisley- Neilston (Cross-boundary) Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Paisley Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Figure 23: Change in average bph at stops between 2019 and 2015 in the PM period
Page 58
49 Changes in Bus Frequency Figure 24 shows that the majority of the routes lost up to total 8 bph in the evening period. Key routes with frequency reductions are- ▪ Paisley – Renfrew- Erskine ▪ Paisley- Glasgow ▪ Johnstone ▪ Paisley – Foxbar /Nethercraigs ▪ Paisley- Auchenback Key routes with frequency increase are- ▪ Paisley – Neilston (cross boundary) Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Paisley Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Figure 24: Change in average bph at stops between 2019 and 2015 in the evening
Page 59
50 Changes in Bus Frequency Figure 25 shows change in average bph at stops between 2023 and 2019 during the AM period, i.e. 7am to 9pm. Key routes with frequency reductions are- ▪ Paisley- Auchenback ▪ Paisley- Dykebar ▪ Paisley- Gallowhill ▪ Paisley- Feruslie, Linwood ▪ Johnstone- Kilbarchan ▪ Paisley – Foxbar /Nethercraigs Key routes with frequency increase are- ▪ Renfrew ▪ Bridge of Weir ▪ Houston ▪ Lochwinnoch ▪ Howwood Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Paisley Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Figure 25: Change in average bph at stops between 2023 and 2019 in the AM period
Page 60
51 Changes in Bus Frequency Figure 26 shows change in average bph at stops during the interpeak period. Key routes with frequency reductions are- ▪ Paisley- Glasgow ▪ Paisley- Dykebar- Barrhead ▪ Paisley- Gallowhill ▪ Paisley- Feruslie, Linwood ▪ Johnstone ▪ Paisley – Foxbar Key routes with frequency increase are- ▪ Paisley- Johnstone Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Paisley Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Figure 26: Change in average bph at stops between 2023 and 2019 in the interpeak period
Page 61
52 Changes in Bus Frequency Figure 27 shows change in average bph at stops between during the PM period. Key routes with frequency reductions are- ▪ Paisley- Glasgow ▪ Paisley- Dykebar ▪ Paisley- Feruslie, Linwood ▪ Paisley- Johnstone ▪ Paisley- Foxbar Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Paisley Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Figure 27: Change in average bph at stops between 2023 and 2019 in the PM period
Page 62
53 Changes in Bus Frequency Figure 28 shows change in average bph at stops between frequencies at stops during the evening period. Key routes with frequency reductions are- ▪ Paisley- Glasgow ▪ Paisley- Johnstone ▪ Paisley- Dykebar ▪ Kilbarchan Key routes with frequency increase are- ▪ Paisley- Glasgow Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Paisley Lochwinnoch Howwood Bridge of Weir Houston Johnstone Kilbarchan Renfrew Bishopton Erskine Figure 28: Change in average bph at stops between 2023 and 2019 in the evening
Page 63
54 Bus Service Withdrawal Scottish Government’s Network Support Grant (NSG) fund was available to both commercial and community bus operators to support Scotland’s bus network, keep fares more affordable and recover from the Covid 19 impacts. The NSG ceased on 31 March 2023. Consequently, six bus services were withdrawn from Renfrewshire in May- July 2023 (Table 8). Withdrawal of these services caused inconveniences for a lot of passengers, some of which were reported through the public consultation. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table 8: Service withdrawal in May-July 2023 Operator Service no Route First Glasgow (No.1) Limited N9 Sauchiehall St - Paisley, Gauze St McGill's Bus Service 22 Paisley - Erskine McGill’s Bus Service 31 Johnstone Castle + Cochrane Castle circular - Johnstone McGill’s Bus Service 54 Neilston circular - Paisley McGill’s Bus Service 64 Phoenix Park or Glasgow - Gallowhill or Newton McGill’s Bus Service 22S Paisley - Erskine
Page 64
55 Services to Employment We used Business Register and Employment Survey (BRES) data 2022 for access to employment analysis. Table 9 shows number of jobs within each locality and the available bus services and frequencies. Major employment centres with more than 2000 jobs in Renfrewshire are – ▪ Paisley ▪ Renfrew ▪ Paisley Airport area ▪ Johnstone ▪ Elderslie Paisley, Renfrew and Johnstone are well served with services every 8-10mins in the peak hour. Paisley airport area has only one service (No757), therefore any delay or cancellations would have serious impact on the commuters. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 65
56 Services to Employment Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Name Urban Rural Classification No. of Jobs Existing Bus Provision Erskine Other Urban Area 1,300 757: 15 mins peak and 30mins interpeak, 521/521A- Hourly services, 23/X23: 15- 20mins peak frequency Renfrew Large Urban Area 10,738 26: 8-10 mins peak frequency, 23/X23: 15- 20mins peak frequency, 21: half hourly services, 77:20-30mins Bishopton Accessible Small Town 865 521/521A: hourly services, Train every 15 mins Inchinnan Accessible Small Town 320 757: 15mins peak hour and 30mins inter peak time. Paisely Large Urban Area 32,930 26: 8-10 mins peak frequency, 38/38A: 8-10 mins peak frequency, 757: 15 mins peak and 30mins interpeak, 21: half hourly services, 6:hourly services, 51/51A: every 15 mins (peak), 66: half hourly services, 904: hourly services, 20/20A: 30 mins morning peak and hourly services, 61: 10mins frequency Paisley-Airport Area Large Urban Area 7,050 757: 15 mins peak and 30mins interpeak Elderslie Large Urban Area 2,210 20/20A: 30 mins morning peak and hourly services, 17A: 30 mins (peak and inter-peak), 38/38A: 8-10 mins peak frequency Johnstone Large Urban Area 3,530 38/38A: 8-10 mins peak frequency, 7/7A: 9-11 mins frequency, 17A: 30 mins (peak and inter-peak), 20/20A: Hourly services, 1/1A:half hourly services, 51/51A: every 15 mins (peak), 17A: 30 mins (peak and inter-peak), 32: half hourly peak and hourly interpeak frequency, 30: hourly services, 61: 10mins frequency Kilbarchan Large Urban Area 220 1/1A: half hourly services, 32: half hourly peak and hourly interpeak frequency, 38/38A: 8-10 mins peak frequency Linwood Large Urban Area 1,540 7/7A: 9-11 mins frequency, 1A: Hourly services Houston/Crosslee Accessible Small Town 615 1A: Hourly services, X7: 40-60 mins frequency Bridge of Weir Accessible Small Town 635 1/1A: half hourly services, X7:40-60 mins frequency Howwood Accessible Rural Area 120 904: hourly services Lochwinnoch Accessible Rural Area 260 307/307A: hourly services between 18:00 and 22:00 Langbank Accessible Rural Area 115 No bus service. Trains every 30mins Table 9 Existing bus provision to employments
Page 66
57 Journey Time Reliability Bus Punctuality Glasgow and Strathclyde Strategic Bus Network Plan (GSSBNP) study identified the routes where services get delayed within SPT area. The study used data from July to September 2022 for a sample of services. Two of the identified routes connect Paisley with Glasgow- ▪ Glasgow to Paisley via M8 ▪ Glasgow to Paisley via A761 (Glasgow Rd) Table 10 shows the percentage of services that are late by more than 2 minutes at different time periods. Overall, more than half of the services are late on these routes in a day with almost all services late by more than 2 mins in the PM period. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Time period Glasgow to Paisley via M8 Glasgow to Paisley via A761 (Glasgow Rd) Early AM (0400-0800) 25-50% 25-50% AM (0800-0900) 50-75% 25-50% Interpeak (0900-1700) 50-75% 50-75% PM (1700-1800) 75-100% 75-100% Evening (1800-2200) 50-75% 50-75% All day 50-75% 50-75% Table 10: Percentage of services that are late by more than 2 minutes at different time periods
Page 67
58 Accessibility to LDP Sites Key LDP sites are concentrated across the following areas- Bishopton; Erskine; Renfrew Ferry . Industrial Supply Sites below deemed to not have access to a bus service within a 400m walk- ▪ Glasgow Airport – AMIDS ▪ Ferguslie Park ▪ Linwood Table 11 shows LDP sites with proposed number of dwellings and existing bus provision. Note that new services might be planned as part of the planning applications. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 68
59 Access to LDP Sites Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table 11: LDP sites with existing bus provision Site References Dwellings Pre-2026 Dwellings Post 2026 Total Dwellings Bus Provision RFRF1037 RFRF0911Z RFRF0911Y 576 1,343 1,919 Bishopton - new larger housing estate and no existing bus routes in vicinity (adjacent to RFRF0911Z). Design looks to be parking space for dwellings. Site approx. 1600m walk to Bishopton Rail Station. RFRF0769B RFRF0994 225 559 784 Renfrew - at corner of Ferry Road and Kings Inch Road. Served by McGill’s 26 and FGLA 77, with approx. 11-14 buses per hour (bph) in Peak. Located at Renfrew/Yoker Ferry which is understood to be replaced by a bridge (however limited as is a draw bridge). Located to the east of site RFRF0994 which is further away from bus corridor. RFRF0971A 420 200 620 Dykebar - site located on McGill’s 66 and 166 routes and encompasses Dykebar Hospital. Frequency approx. 4-6bph in peaks. RFRF0971 140 110 250 Thornly Park - on B774 Caplethill Road. Served by McGill’s 51 and 54 with 11-12 bph during peak times and mapping indicating within a walking distance of existing stop RFRF1003 165 81 246 Erskine - located on A726 and serviced by McGill’s 23D. Reasonable frequency however no bus stop infrastructure located on road at site which would be required. RFRF0989A 195 15 210 Hawkhead - served by McGill’s 10 and Key Coaches, with frequency of 1bph. Appears to be housing, many of which have driveways. Within walk distance of Hawkhead Rail Station. RFRF1040 - 150 150 Ferguslie Park - main section of site located within 400m of existing service (McGill’s 24 and 264), however not all parts of site are. East end of site walkable to Paisley St James rail station. RFRF1024 50 50 100 Spateston - located on B787 Beith Road, service level of 7-9bph in AM peak.
Page 69
60 Access to Active Bus Stops We used Scottish Government’s 6-fold Urban-Rural classification to determine the population within walking distances of bus stops. The following walking distances have been used - ▪ Urban areas: 400m and 600m ▪ Small towns: 600m and 800m ▪ Rural areas: 800m Table 12 shows % of population within distance of a bus stop with at least an hourly bus service at different time periods. The analysis show that a high proportion of population within urban areas are within 600m of bus stops. Small towns have relatively lower coverage (maximum 76% of population within 800m) and rural areas are poorly served with only around 40% population being within 800m of active bus stops. This indicates the limitations in terms of access to bus network in Howwood, Lochwinnoch and Langbank. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options URBAN - RURAL CLASSIFICATION TOWNS/SETTLEMENTS MORNING PEAK (0700-0900) INTER PEAK (1000-1500) EVENING PEAK (1700-1900) Within 400m Within 600m Within 800m Within 400m Within 600m Within 800m Within 400m Within 600m Within 800m Large Urban Area Renfrew, Paisley, Elderslie, Johnstone, Kilbarchan, Linwood 78% 88% - 77% 88% - 75% 87% Other Urban Area Erskine 71% 80% - 74% 82% - 71% 80% Accessible Small Town Bishopton, Inchinnan, Houston/ Crosslee, Bridge of Weir - 68% 76% - 69% 76% 63% 72% Remote Small Town N/A - N/A N/A - N/A N/A N/A N/A Accessible Rural Area Howwood, Lochwinnoch, Langbank - - 41% - - 32% 42% Remote Rural Area N/A - - N/A - - N/A N/A Table 12: Percentage of population within walking distances of bus stops in Renfrewshire
Page 70
61 Accessibility Gaps Accessibility isochrones have been mapped to determine access to services by public transport, using the following criteria - ▪ Access to bus stops with at least an hourly service ▪ Number of transfers limited to 2 ▪ Access to a bus /rail within 800m walking distance Table 13 shows town/settlements where access to health and education by bus journeys require more than 50 mins. It is to be noted that the analysis has been undertaken using Podaris tool which takes account of average waiting time during each time period. The analysis show that journeys to hospitals, universities and colleges from Bridge of Weir, Howwood, and Lochwinnoch take more than 50mins in all time periods, making it difficult and inconvenient to access these services for people who do not/cannot drive. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table 13: Accessibility to health and education Access to AM Journey time >50mins IP Journey time >50mins PM Journey time >50mins OP Journey time >50mins Hospitals Bridge of Weir, Howwood, Houston, Craigends, Lochwinnoch, Bishopton Bridge of Weir Houston, Lochwinnoch Bridge of Weir Houston, Craigends, Lochwinnoch Bridge of Weir Houston, Craigends, Bishopton Lochwinnoch GP Part of Langbank - - - College Part of Langbank, Bridge of Weir, Howwood, Lochwinnoch Bridge of Weir, Howwood, Lochwinnoch Bridge of Weir, Howwood, Lochwinnoch Bridge of Weir, Howwood, Lochwinnoch University Part of Langbank, Part of Erskine, Bridge of Weir, Howwood, Lochwinnoch Erskine, Bridge of Weir, Lochwinnoch Erskine, Bridge of Weir, Howwood, Lochwinnoch Erskine, Bridge of Weir, Howwood, Lochwinnoch
Page 71
62 Accessibility to Settlements Definition of accessible towns and rural areas according to Scotland’s Urban/Rural 6-fold Classification2: ▪ Accessible Small Towns: Settlements of 3,000 to 9,999 people, and within a 30-minute drive time of a Settlement of 10,000 or more. ▪ Accessible Rural Areas: Areas with a population of less than 3,000 people, and within a 30-minute drive time of a Settlement of 10,000 or more. Table 14 below shows accessibility analysis results to determine whether the settlements are accessible by PT as per the definition above. The results show that majority of these settlements are out with 30mins of public transport journeys from a settlement of 10,000 or more. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table 14: Accessibility by bus in 30 mins Settlements Urban-Rural Classification (6-fold) AM IP PM OP Remarks Bishopton Accessible Small Towns Yes Yes* Yes* Yes* *Access to small areas of Paisley is possible Houston/Crosslee Accessible Small Towns No No No No Not within 30mins of Johnstone or Paisley Bridge of Weir Accessible Small Towns Yes Yes Yes Yes Within 30mins of Johnstone Howwood Accessible Rural Areas No Yes Yes Yes Average wait time is much lower in the interpeak for train service to access Johnstone (morning peak wait time: 30 mins, Inter peak: 15 mins) Lochwinnoch Accessible Rural Areas No No No No Not within 30mins of Johnstone Langbank Accessible Rural Areas No No No No Not within 30mins of Erskine or Paisley 2 https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-urban-rural-classification-2020/pages/2/
Page 72
63 Bus Priority Measures Existing Bus Priority Measures There are currently limited bus priority measures in Renfrewshire, as described below. ▪ No bus priority lanes with only one bus gate at Inchinnan Road. ▪ SCOOT systems are currently being planned and will be implemented in early 2024 Glasgow City Region Bus Partnership Fund study proposed a number of bus priority measures. Tables 15 and 16 below present the proposed priority measures that are within Renfrewshire Council area. Survey findings revealed that some stops (e.g. Braehead Shopping Centre) suffer from bus bunching during peak hours. This could be a result of lack of bus priority measures which generates delays for buses and results in bus bunching. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 73
64 Proposed BPF Bus Priority Measures Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table 15: Glasgow City Region BPF - proposed bus priority measures (1/2) GSSBNP Corridor Intervention Name Intervention Description Bus Priority Interchange Bus Service Other 09 - Paisley Road West Paisley Town Centre Junction Improvements Key junctions to be recast to improve public transport priority, reduce large junction footprints, improve safety for walking and cycling. • Junction 1—Gordon St / Causeyside St / Canal St • Junction 2—Lonend / Bridge St / Mill St / Gordon St • Junction 3—Mill St / Glasgow Rd / Gauze St / Incle St • Junction 4—Inner Ring Road incorporating Wallneuk Gyratory x 09 - Paisley Road West Renfrewshire East – West Corridor including Johnstone High Street • Glasgow Road to Paisley Abbey - Bus lane • Paisley High Street / Broomlands Road to junction with Gallowgreen Road - Parking and loading enforcement measures • Broomlands Street from Gallowgreen Road to A761 - Bus Priority • A761 to Johnstone - Designated Clearway with removal of parking and loading, including enforcement • Johnstone High Street from William Street to George Street - Infrastructure improvements including removal of parking, potential for bus gate x 09a - Shieldhall/ Govan Road Fastlink Extension through QEUH to Braehead/Renfrew Western Approach to Renfrew x 09a - Shieldhall/ Govan Road Fastlink Extension through QEUH to Braehead Renfrew to Glasgow Airport/AMIDS Renfrew to Airport/AMIDS x M8/Glasgow Airport Glasgow Airport Upgrade facilities to accommodate future 2025/2030 network levels of service x Renfrewshire AMIDS Travel Hub A public transport hub to serve AMIDS, Scotland’s Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District in Renfrewshire. x
Page 74
65 Proposed BPF Bus Priority Measures Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table 16: Glasgow City Region BPF - proposed bus priority measures (2/2) GSSBNP Corridor Intervention Name Intervention Description Bus Priority Interchange Bus Service Other Renfrewshire Renfrewshire North – South Corridor • Neilston Road - Review of parking and loading and enforcement. Potential for northbound bus lane. • Causeyside Street / St Mirren Brae - Bus priority lane • Smithhills Street - Investigation of bus only infrastructure. Potential to open Central Road bus stops for LEVs including streetscape work on Central Road. • Renfrew Road to Arkleston Road - Northbound bus lane • Renfrew Road to Renfrew - Potential to extend northbound bus lane or increase parking and loading enforcement. x x Renfrewshire Renfrewshire Orbital Feasibility study x x Renfrewshire Upgrade to UTC system at key junctions in Renfrewshire TLP scheme to reduce the delay experienced by buses at traffic signals primarily through SCOOT – based bus priority, making use of the recently introduced replacement SCOOT system. x Renfrewshire Camera Enforcement in Renfrewshire Investigation of a camera-based enforcement regime on the key routes identified above. A suitable ANPR system would allow urban clearways to be created and importantly enforced. Assumed up to 20 locations. x Renfrewshire Braehead Bus Station Upgrade facilities to accommodate future 2025/2030 network levels of service x Renfrewshire Improve interchanges - Paisley, Johnstone Improve public transport offering (both services, connections and interchange facilities) in these locations where users are reliant on taking multiple public transport services to access key destinations x Renfrewshire Improve interchanges - Bishopton Improve public transport offering (both services, connections and interchange facilities) in these locations where users are reliant on taking multiple public transport services to access key destinations x Renfrewshire LDP Service Change - Renfrewshire Sites - Changes to existing services (frequency, extension of existing service(s)) Changes to existing services (frequency, extension of existing service(s)) at sites - including: Bishopton, Renfrew Ferry, Dykebar, North Barr etc x
Page 75
66 Network Review Summary Suggested Route Improvements The network review in conjunction with the public consultation reveal that there are a few areas and routes where bus provision is sub-standard. These areas include- ▪ Langbank to Paisley ▪ Dargavel/Bishopton ▪ Erskine to Paisley ▪ Connections to RAH ▪ Connections to Southwest- Houston, Bridge of Weir, and Kilbarchan Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 76
67 Recommendations We recommend the following bus routes and associated service specification for consideration. Table 17 shows proposed new routes and Table 18 shows improved frequencies for some existing services. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table17: Proposed new bus routes Area Route Route Category Recommended Service Langbank/ Dargavel/ Bishopton Paisley- Renfrew- Erskine- Bishopton-Langbank Principal or rural connector services Half hourly services in the peaks and hourly services in interpeak and off- peak Bridge of Weir Bridge of Weir- Kilbarchan- Johnstone-Elderslie- Paisley Principal or rural connector services Half hourly services in the peaks and hourly services in interpeak and off- peak Bridge of Weir Bridge of Weir- Houston- Linwood- Paisley Principal or rural connector services Hourly services Houston, Bridge of Weir and Kilbarchan Connections to RAH and QEUH On-demand DRT or Community Transport for Hospital Runs Area Route Route Category Recommended Service Hawkhead 10-Hawkhead Estate to Royal Alexandra Hospital Core services Half hourly services in the peaks and hourly services in interpeak and off- peak Dykebar/Potterhill 70- Potterhill- Dykebar- Hunterhill- Paisley Core services Half hourly services in the peaks and hourly services in interpeak and off- peak Johnstone 20/20A- Johnstone to Paisley Core services Half hourly services Table 18: Proposed improved frequency for the existing routes
Page 77
68 Recommendations Hours of Operation ▪ All services should have core hours of operation between 07:00 and 19:00. Late evenings (19:00 to 22:00) can be covered by reduced frequencies. ▪ Night buses should be operated on 7 days a week rather than just weekends ▪ Night buses to late night shift workplaces, such as hospitals, Paisley airport should be considered. ▪ Guaranteed last bus for both regular and night services. ▪ Some routes do not operate on Sundays (shown in Tables 6 and 7). These routes should be served with the same services on Sundays with reduced frequencies. Passenger Information ▪ An integrated real-time passenger information platform including different operators and other modes (i.e. Train) should be introduced. ▪ Based on survey findings, improvements need to be made to real-time information accuracy. ▪ Up-to-date printed maps and timetables should be available at bus stops for people who do not have access to internet. ▪ Information about delays, re-routeing, cancellations should be updated in the information platform to avoid inconvenience. Should such a situation arise, alternative options should be advised. Fares and Ticketing ▪ Survey findings reveal that buses are expensive for the users. Affordable fare structures should be implemented: lower fares for all may be achievable (similar to the capped £2 single fares in England), and/or with a larger budget through an expansion of concessionary travel free of charge or at nominal cost for targeted groups such as those on lowest incomes. ▪ The existing Glasgow Tripper which allows multi-operator bus journeys includes First, McGill's and West Coast Motors. Other small operators should also be included under this ticketing scheme. . Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 78
LA CONFIANCE TRANSPORTE LE MONDE Alternatives for Change Section 5
Page 79
70 Current Operational Model Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Figure 29: Roles and responsibilities in the current operating model Bus services were deregulated across the UK in 1986 by the Transport Act of 1985. Existing bus companies (predominantly municipally or nationally controlled) became open to competition, provided they could satisfy some basic operational and safety requirements and obtain an operating licence. Figure 29 shows the roles and responsibilities in the current operational model. Ownership Vehicles - bus operators Depots - bus operators Bus network planning Commercial networks - bus operators Supported services - SPT Bus fares and ticketing Bus operators for all their products SPT for multi- modal products Mode Integration At the discretion of bus operators Bus service information Bus stop displays - SPT Online and real-time - bus operators and SPT Funding Farebox - bus operators Supported services - SPT BSOG & NCTS - Transport Scotland
Page 80
71 Limitations of the Current Operational Model Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options The current operational model poses certain challenges and limitations that hinder the desired improvements- ▪ The council does not have the powers to govern bus operations across their areas and cannot prevent the curtailment or removal of services. Example- withdrawal of Service 22. ▪ Lack of profits in some routes has resulted in lack of competition between operators, thus reducing service quality. McGill’s currently holds a monopoly in Renfrewshire. ▪ Integrated transport has become more difficult as each operator has their own agenda and timetable to maintain. ▪ Survey findings reveal that there is lack of control and public accountability for bus services in Renfrewshire Fundamentally under the current bus network delivery model, only bus and coach operators have the powers to plan and design their respective bus networks whereas Renfrewshire is only able to plan socially necessary bus services with support from SPT.
Page 81
72 Bus Partnership and Reform Options ▪ Voluntary Partnerships (VP): A Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) provides a formal written framework within which bus operators, local transport authorities, local highway authorities and other relevant actors will work together to achieve stated objectives and deliver agreed measures and facilities. Renfrewshire Council is a member of the Glasgow City Region Bus Partnership, which brings together SPT, eight local transport authorities, and bus operators. ▪ Bus Service Improvement Partnership (BSIP): A Bus Service Improvement Partnership is a new form of statutory quality partnership enabled by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. A BSIP enables partners to come together and agree binding commitments that will be delivered during the term of the partnership. If measures and facilities agreed in the BSIP are not delivered then the relevant partner can be at risk of sanctions – as an example, an operator who fails to meet the agreed standards of operation for a service (a vehicle quality standard or the acceptance of multi-operator tickets, for instance) could see its services deregistered by the Traffic Commissioner. ▪ Bus Franchising Scheme: A Bus Franchising Scheme brings an end to on-road competition between commercial operators and replaces it with competition for operating contracts, placing a higher degree of control over bus service specifications and bus fares in the hands of the local transport authority. In its place, the local transport authority will competitively procure a series of bus service contracts that will deliver the levels of service (days/times of operation, service frequency, fare products available, vehicle specification, etc) it considers to be required to meet the needs of its communities, integrate with other transport provision in the region and be afforded with the finances available to it ▪ Municipal Ownership: The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 permits local transport authorities to establish a municipally owned public bus operator(s) that can compete for contracts and operate registered bus services, reversing the provisions of the Transport Act 1985 that prevented the creation of such an operator. The municipal operator would likely be an arms-length company wholly owned by the local authority, providing suitable separation when competing for tendered bus service contracts (as is the case in Edinburgh and Lothian Buses). Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 82
73 Case Studies for Franchising and Municipal Ownership Franchising ▪ Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) started appraising bus franchising in 2017 and are currently implementing it. Full network implementation by 2025. ▪ Liverpool City Region Combined Authority: Phased franchising to be started in late 2026 ▪ Other local authorities that are looking into bus franchising are- ▪ Cambridgeshire Peterborough Combined Authority: Consultation likely to start in early 2024 ▪ South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority: Assessment of franchising options ongoing ▪ Briton and Hove City Council undertook (BHCC) Bus Franchising Feasibility Study. However, the study recommended that adoption of franchising in Brighton & Hove would be detrimental to bus users and risky for BHCC as the sponsoring authority which would incur high potential costs to set up and monitor the franchise arrangements with no guarantee that all its objectives would be addressed. Municipal Bus Ownership ▪ Current Municipally Owned Bus Companies are Lothian Buses, Nottingham City Transport, Ipswich Buses, Reading Buses, Blackpool, Cardiff, Newport, Warrington. ▪ Many Municipal Bus Companies ceased to trade due to competition impacts or have since been sold, such as- Merthyr Tydfil, Taff Ely, Maidstone, Barrow, Chesterfield, Islwyn, Cynon Valley, Southend, Colchester, Grimsby & Cleethorpes, Darlington, Burnley & Pendle, Blackburn, Hyndburn, Fylde, Rossendale, Preston, Bournemouth, Derby, Eastbourne, Plymouth, Chester etc. ▪ These case studies suggest that entering new commercial local bus operations takes time, persistence, and has a major cost. Staff requirements are also a major consideration, along with the need to answer/defend complaints to the CMA, Traffic Commissioner and FOI requests. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 83
74 Comparison of Operational Models Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table 19: Comparison of Operational Models Model Advantages Disadvantages Existing Competitive model ▪ Competition between operators are likely to improve service provision ▪ Financial risks lie with operators ▪ Lack of competition for some routes results in monopoly ▪ Data sharing restricted ▪ Services may be withdrawn with limited notice and without regard to wider consequences (e.g. social impacts) ▪ LA do not have any control over services and network ▪ Competition law rules out area wide common fares Voluntary Partnerships ▪ Offers improved benefits through bus operators' voluntary agreement ▪ Can be easily established ▪ Improved standards for all buses operating within a local authority area, and if it included cross boundary services would potentially improve services ▪ Competition law rules out area wide common fare ▪ Data sharing restricted and Services may be withdrawn with limited notice and without regard to wider consequences ▪ Difference in geographies and political situation may make it an impractical proposition BSIP ▪ Statutory nature improves certainty of delivery ▪ Can reflect wider objectives, i.e., congestion and employment ▪ There are some examples of achieving growth and improved service ratings ▪ Responsive to customer demand ▪ Seems to work best with just one main operator ▪ Competition law rules out area wide common fare ▪ Data sharing restricted ▪ Services may be withdrawn with limited notice and without regard to wider consequences, but only in line with BSIP agreement Bus Franchising Scheme ▪ Can give control over bus network and services including data and links to wider community ▪ Can deliver integrated branding making networks easier to follow by the passengers ▪ Does not seem to deter competition – London averages 3 tenders per route ▪ Easier to achieve social and community objectives ▪ Requires significant resources and takes time for local authorities to build up exercise. ▪ Transfers most financial risk to local authority ▪ May be slow to implement and high cost - given as reason why West Midlands not going for franchising ▪ May not be responsive to customer demand Municipal Ownership ▪ Can give control over that part of the bus network and services provided by the municipal bus company, including access to data and links to wider community ▪ Give a clear sense of local identity ▪ May reduce operating costs and/or allow delivery of services at lower profit margins ▪ Any profits can be ploughed back into service in the absence of private shareholders (the Social Dividend) ▪ Better growth and quality record than other operators (e.g. Lothian Buses, Reading Buses) ▪ Easier to achieve social and community objectives ▪ Requires significant resources and takes time for local authorities to build up expertise ▪ Financial risk for local authorities ▪ Start-up costs may be significant with no certainty of return on investment ▪ Municipal bus company still open to market pressures from competing private sector bus operators which could potentially erode its revenue base and destabilise its financial position ▪ Danger of municipality diverting bus profits for other purposes
Page 84
75 Appraisal of Bus Partnership and Reform Options Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options A qualitative appraisal of bus partnership and reform options has been undertaken. It is acknowledged that each bus option is likely to produce partial or full benefits in terms of the proposed improvements. Hence, the appraisal used a four-point scale as shown in Table 20. Table 21 presents qualitative Appraisal of Bus Reform Options. It should be noted that some of the scorings for the municipal ownership option would require a significant network share in order to be realised, e.g. to improve reliability and fewer cancellations. This may not be achievable if other bus operations in the area cannot successfully be competed with or acquired. ✓ Partially achievable ✓✓ Moderately achievable ✓✓✓ Fully achievable × Little or no scope for achievement Table 20: Appraisal criteria
Page 85
76 Appraisal of Bus Partnership and Reform Options Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table 21: Qualitative Appraisal of Bus Reform Options Proposed Improvements Status Quo Improved Voluntary Partnership BSIP Bus Franchising Municipal Ownership Passenger Needs Improve reliability and fewer cancellations × ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ Improve access to network ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓ Accurate and integrated passenger information ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ Extended hours of operation × ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓ Improve driver behaviour ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Minimise service withdrawals without adequate alternative provisions × ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓ Reduce bus bunching × × ✓ ✓✓ ✓ Multi-operator and multi-mode ticketing ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓ Implementation and Operation Data management for network analysis and planning × ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓ Indicative cost - - Implementation- around £1.5 million, Management-£200,000 to £250,000 GMCA spent around £15m, in building the case for franchising and around £135m in total to complete the transition to a franchised network in 2025. Renfrewshire would require about £1.5m to build the case and around £15m-20m to complete the transition At least £30m to finance acquisition of operators’ businesses in Renfrewshire Required resources (local authority staff expertise and workforce) No additional burden Low additional burden Low to moderate additional burden Very high additional burden, not achievable within existing council staff resources. However, skill requirements are known and could be delivered with additional resources. Very high additional burden, not achievable within existing council staff resources. However, skill requirements are known and could be delivered with additional resources. Legal Risk and Liabilities (to leading local authority) As Current Low Moderate Very high Modest in the short term but high in the longer term Timescale None 5-10 weeks 9-12 months from initial informal discussions minimum of 6-7 years 1-3 years for small scale operations and a minimum of 6-7 years for larger scale operations
Page 86
77 Qualitative Appraisal Summary Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options ▪ It can be seen that, in relation to the criteria assessed in this qualitative appraisal: ▪ The status quo has limited potential to deliver the types of proposed improvements required on the bus network. In some instances, such as extended hours of operation, improving reliability and having fewer cancellations, and reducing bus bunching, there is little to no scope for achieving these based on the recent trends observed in the analysis. Indeed, the status quo may be a worsening of the currently situation. ▪ While Renfrewshire Council is part of an existing VPA, an improved agreement could increase the potential for delivering some of the improvements required. This would need members to agree that these improvements are a priority and approve actions and resources to deliver them. However, VPAs are not typically a suitable foundation to take forward major joint initiatives between the public and private sectors. Due to the optionality of the agreement, meaningful actions can be slow to materialise and additional resource commitments from partners can be modest, resulting in only the partial delivery of the full scope of potential improvements that could be achieved. ▪ BSIPs are defined by statute and, therefore, intended to offer a much more robust governance structure than VPAs, whereby commitments made by partners are carefully matched, and – in certain circumstances – can even be imposed on operators who are not willing partners. The anticipation is that by making this governance process more robust it will give greater certainty and encourage all partners to make more ambitious commitments. As such, BSIPs may have a positive role to play in delivering the types of proposed improvements required on the bus network to a greater extent than the status quo or an improved VPA. However, achieving outcomes would be heavily dependent on availability of additional funding and positive and ambitious engagement between principal partners, and ultimately there is no absolute certainty of sustained delivery. ▪ Franchising can take multiple forms, in terms of risk sharing, geographical scope and flexibility of operational delivery. If the franchising authority can afford to fund its initiatives, then it can take complete control to direct the outcomes it desires. Therefore, there is a very strong potential for delivering the types of improvements required on the bus network. However, a franchising arrangement has: very significant costs to establish and maintain; requires a long setup time, of at least 5 years; would need additional council staff members and skills to administer; and there are major risk burdens for the leading local authority. Crucially, also, improvements can likely only be delivered through additional funding from the status quo not through the delivery model alone. ▪ Municipal bus ownership has moderate potential to deliver the types of proposed improvements required on the bus network, for example by operating services to extend operating hours, manage service withdrawals etc. However, it also comes at a significant cost, major staff requirements, long timescales for establishment, and numerous risks. Furthermore, achieving many of the improvements would require the municipal operations to either successfully compete with or acquire existing bus services in the area, which would be a significant challenge and would come at major cost.
Page 87
78 Costs and Revenues of Delivery Models Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options Table 22: Cost and Revenue for Status quo, BSIP and Franchising (in millions and rounded) Base Stability BSIP Franchising Base Revenue £11.2m £11.2m £11.2m £11.2m Cost £23.1m £23.1m £23.1m £23.1m Level of Service Initiative Revenue - - £0.9m £2.2m Cost - - £3.0m £8.1m Affordable Fares Initiative Revenue - - -£0.5m -£2.0m Cost - - - - Quality Initiative Revenue - - £0.3m £0.4m Cost - - £0.2m £0.2m Non Farebox Income £12.3m £12.3m £13.9m £14.8m SPT Supported Services £0.6m £0.6m £0.6m £0.6m Future Additional SPT Subsidy Request - £0.3m £0.5m £4.8m Total Operators Revenue £24.1m £24.4m £26.9m £32.0m Total Cost to Operators £23.1m £23.1m £26.3m £31.4m ▪ Table 22 below shows costs and revenues for different delivery models, including- Base (status quo), and Stability (maintain the current network based on the challenges facing the bus industry).
Page 88
79 Cost of Municipal Ownership ▪ An approximate cost estimation to start a municipal bus company with a fleet of 75 vehicles are presented below: ▪ Fleet size: 75 ▪ Peak vehicle for Service: 65 ▪ Engineering Spares: 10 ▪ Capital cost of £3.75m and total annual cost of £10.8m. The annual cost includes: ▪ 50% of costs attributed to Drivers ▪ 14% of costs attributed to fuel ▪ 15% of costs attributed to engineering ▪ Vehicle depreciation assumed at market value and not net book value with interest at 4% to obtain capital ▪ This cost is for Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) of 65 vehicles. For reference, the PVR for the current network in Renfrewshire is approximately 250-300. ▪ Any significant increase in costs on drivers, fuel or engineering has major impact on profits. This leads to the inevitable decision of rationalising the network and/or increasing bus fares. ▪ Setting up an arms-length company has risks as the LA will have to compete with big companies and may not be successful in this. The alternative option is to buy the existing operators’ business which will be even more expensive. For Renfrewshire, it is estimated to be around £30m. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 89
80 Observations on Costs ▪ Under existing arrangements or a BSIP, operators will only enhance services if the cost of doing so is met by additional income generated. As Table 22 shows, even for an ambitious BSIP this is unlikely, resulting in a requirement to subsidise the operators. ▪ Under franchising, a significant increase in service levels and a suite of fares initiatives targeted at the most disadvantaged groups in Renfrewshire, would require even more subsidy and major start-up costs. ▪ Municipal operation of a bus company requires significant start-up investment, and in all models of local bus service delivery there is extensive commercial risk, which would lie with the public sector (e.g. dealing with cost increases, fluctuating demand, etc). We have not established how required subsidies or initial investments would be funded. ▪ However, as we also show in Table 22, doing nothing is not cost free either. It is likely that the current levels of fares and services do not represent a stable situation – without additional subsidy for local bus services in Renfrewshire it is likely that operators will need to reduce operated kms further and/or increase fares above inflation. This is represented by the ‘Stability’ scenario, which shows costs incurred just to maintain the network. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 90
81 SPT Bus Reform Options Appraisal ▪ SPT is currently developing their Regional Bus Strategy which includes looking into bus reform options. Their committee report published on 15th March 2024 provides the following recommendations for Future Delivery of the Regional Bus Network for public consultation: ▪ SPT should commence work on franchising, in line with the requirements of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. ▪ SPT should progress with Bus Service Improvement Partnership (BSIP) arrangements to provide a firm basis for private and public sector commitments to arrest further passenger decline and improve the bus network over the medium term. –If proven beneficial by the SPT study, these options could be considered at the regional level. ▪ As and when it may be required, SPT will consider developing business case(s) for small-scale municipal bus company(ies) aimed at providing socially necessary services in parts of the region where private operators are currently very limited. ▪ SPT should continue working with local authorities, Transport Scotland and bus operators to continue delivery through the Bus Partnership Fund (Temporarily suspended for financial year 2024-25 and may return under a different fund). ▪ Business As Usual and Voluntary Partnerships should be ruled out as means to deliver a better bus network as more radical intervention is required. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 91
82 Recommendations for Renfrewshire Council ▪ The public consultation findings suggest that passengers want better frequency, reliability and more routes which supports the case for change, along with the other analysis presented in this study. ▪ The appraisal of bus partnership and reform options shows the likely benefits of the alternatives for change. It is anticipated that partnerships with bus operators – voluntary or BSIP, could improve the situation from the status quo and bus franchising and municipal ownership models offer further opportunity to tackle the problems identified in this study and help provide a world class bus system. ▪ While benefits are possible through the partnership and reform options, it must be clearly noted that improvements to local bus services in Renfrewshire would come at a significant cost (potentially initial investment and ongoing subsidy). These costs, lack of funding, and wider deliverability issues and risks are likely to be the main limiting factors for Renfrewshire in pursuing one of these ways forward. ▪ The recommendations for Renfrewshire Council on alternative transport models are as follows: ▪ Based on this study and the SPT bus reform appraisal outcomes, it is clear that Business As Usual or Voluntary Partnerships do not have the potential to deliver a better bus network. Therefore, Renfrewshire Council should investigate the possibility of implementing a BSIP in the short term, as either a regional scheme with SPT or at a local level, and liaise with SPT regarding franchising for consideration at a regional level. ▪ As highlighted in Slides 79-80, municipal operation of a bus company requires significant start-up investment, and there is extensive commercial risk. Therefore, it may not be suitable for Renfrewshire Council given the cost, commercial risks and competition with other operators. However, as mentioned in Slide 81, SPT will consider developing business case(s) for a small-scale municipal bus company(ies) aimed at providing socially necessary services. Renfrewshire Council should also liaise with SPT to explore this option at a regional level to serve the unmet demand within their network. ▪ The bus reform options are being considered by many local, regional or combined authorities following the Bus Services Act 2017 and Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. The council should seek views, knowledge and lessons learnt from other local authorities when exploring the potential for implementation of the new bus reform options. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 92
LA CONFIANCE TRANSPORTE LE MONDE Community Transport Section 6
Page 93
84 Purpose and Types of Community Transport Community transport fills the gaps left by most public transport services. It is there to help people who: ▪ Can't use 'normal' buses because of health or mobility problems; or ▪ Don't have a bus service in their area; or ▪ Can't use public transport because it doesn't take them where (or when) they need to go Types of Community Transport ▪ Dial-A-Ride (Demand Responsive) Services ▪ School Transport ▪ Hospital Transport ▪ Group Hire ▪ Voluntary Car Schemes ▪ Shopmobility – A national scheme which provides mobility equipment for hire in towns or city centres. Such as wheelchairs and electric scooters. Advanced booking is advised. ▪ Wheels to Work / Wheels to Learn – Mopeds or bicycles are available for low-cost loan alongside travel advice. This is for individuals, who must be at risk of losing, or have a promise of a place at either education or work. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 94
85 Existing Provision Renfrewshire Community Transport as a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation have been set up recently. It aims to apply to the Renfrewshire Sustainable Communities Fund to look at scoping the need and developing a business plan for Renfrewshire Community Transport. The organisation is also looking to build a formal partnership with Community Transport Glasgow and set out service level agreement. ▪ Currently only one operator registered with Community Transport Association (figure from January 2024) ▪ Entry barrier is high, requires very large upfront investment for vehicles ▪ Mostly relies on volunteers to operate ▪ Majority of funding is from grants and donations SPT MyBus This is a dial-a-ride service can be booked for shopping, GP appointments, visiting friends, attending local clubs, and much more. Based on survey anecdotes, many people may not be aware of this service. Additionally, the services are available only to those with temporary or permanent mobility issues and the trip requests are not confirmed until the day before travel, which makes it inconvenient for some. As per the SPT website, MyBus currently have reduced and restricted services in place, with a reduced fleet and vehicles operating across larger areas. As such, spare capacity does not currently exist which could adequately serve unmet public transport demand. MyBus services that run in Renfrewshire are shown in Table 23. The services run from Monday - Saturday 0900 – 1800 and Sunday 0900 – 1700. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options MyBus Route Areas where available Areas connect to M45 Renfrew Renfrew, Glasgow Airport, Bishopton, Erskine, Inchinnan Phoenix Centre, RAH, Paisley Centre, Dykebar Hospital M65 Johnstone Elderslie, Johnstone, Linwood Paisley Centre, RAH, Dykebar Hospital M85 Paisley Foxbar, Glenburn, Thornly Park, Castlehead, Ferguislie Park, Gallowhill, Oldhall, Hillington Industrial Estate Phoenix Centre (Linwood), Braehead Table 23: MyBus services in Renfrewshire
Page 95
86 Demand for Community Transport Areas/Routes to be served by Community Transport Bus network analysis revealed a few areas where the demands are not met by bus services. The following areas are not well connected with Johnstone or Paisley and Journeys to RAH or QEUH take multiple transfers and a long time. ▪ Houston. ▪ Bridge of Weir. ▪ Kilbarchan. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 96
87 Proposal for Community Transport Proposed Community Transport Options The following community transport options could be explored- ▪ Dial-a-Ride: Renfrewshire Council should discuss potential service provision in these areas for people who find it difficult to use public buses due to age or long-term disabilities. SPT already have some services in Renfrewshire. However, lack of awareness about this service was realised through the public drop-in sessions. Hence, public awareness should be raised to make it known to people. ▪ Hospital Services: A community transport service for hospital. This could be planned in liaison with NHS non-urgent patient services. ▪ Collector Bus: People of these villages/settlements have less frequent and less-direct services to major towns. Hence, services with small buses could be deployed to collect people and get to a hub where a high frequency bus will take them to major towns. The services should be coordinated to minimise travel times. Funding for Community Transport Capital Funding ▪ Renfrewshire Sustainable Communities Fund through Renfrewshire Community Transport ▪ Transport Scotland’s ‘Community Bus Fund’ For feasibility studies, assessments or developing a business case, Community Transport Association (CTA) can help developing the funding plan. Revenue Funding ▪ SPT Fund Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 97
LA CONFIANCE TRANSPORTE LE MONDE Actions to Take Forward Section 7
Page 98
89 List of Actions to Take Forward The following actions have been listed for Renfrewshire Council to take forward: Short Term ▪ Continue to take steps to solve the identified problems that are within the Council or SPT’s responsibility, such a providing new bus stops, and improving bus stop facilities and passenger information. ▪ Should continue to engage with bus operators to improve driver behaviour, avoid short notice cancellations and service withdrawal. ▪ Should start to engage with- ▪ Police and wider communities to ensure on-board safety; and ▪ The Renfrewshire Community Transport Association to explore the options proposed on Slide 87. ▪ Should explore Bus Service Improvement Partnership (BSIP) arrangements with bus operators, SPT and other neighbouring local authorities to address the key problems identified through the consultation. This will provide a firm basis for private and public sector commitments to arrest further passenger decline and improve the bus network over the medium term. ▪ Feed into the SPT consultation including public and key stakeholders on the recommended bus reform options. Long Term ▪ Based on the outcomes of SPT’s ongoing consultation, consider how Renfrewshire’s local needs can be met through a regional level implementation of a bus franchising scheme or other bus delivery options taken forward at a regional level. Renfrewshire Bus Network Review and Future Options
Page 99
Find out more www.systra.com/uk