Minutes:
Members were advised of plans to categorise bus services into different tiers, with different kinds of journeys having different requirements.
· A core network of ‘turn up and go’ services, running every 15 minutes or so on major routes, where the priority would be to extend and enhance these routes. These services would be expected to be commercially viable.
· A secondary network which would run less frequently and may need to be partially subsidised. The priority for these journeys would be improved consistency, with new connections.
· A network for tendered services and community connectivity needs, dealing with socially necessary and contracted journeys. These would also need to be made more consistent, with the possibility of replacing some of these services with DRT where appropriate.
This would be part of a 5-year plan to evolve the bus service, without losing the existing capabilities and important role it already played.
Members were asked to consider several questions relating to bus network design:
· Is the above-mentioned evolutionary approach the right one for the region, or would a revolutionary approach (redrawing and starting the network from scratch) be better?
· What are the priority areas and locations for new bus links and connections?
· Would replacing certain services with DRT be welcomed?
·
Which customer groups should be considered as a priority to target
with better bus network connectivity?
It was noted that the funding available as part of the National Bus Strategy was a one-off payment, and therefore it was important to consider future maintenance. The Combined Authority’s intention was to use the available funding to create a sustainable atmosphere, where the bus service could continue without significant further public funding.
Members questioned whether the strategic development plans, employment plans, etc, of district councils had been considered. Attracting developments that would reduce car usage from the outset would need these facilities built into the network in advance, and currently many housing developments of recent years were poorly served by public transport services, with Hade Edge in Kirklees being highlighted, although it was noted that First Group were currently in talks with local groups on how this area could be better served.
Officers advised that a long-term plan for the bus network was developed in 2018/2019 taking into account what was currently known about future plans, although the pandemic had since impacted on these plans. Mechanisms also existed to acquire initial funding for services in these situations, such as Section 106 agreements or developer contributions, and DRT could also be of use in this scenario.
Members raised the following other questions and comments:
· DRT was highlighted as playing an important role going forward, particularly as transport patterns had changed and were continuing to do so, but the new needs had not yet been modelled. DRT could fill these needs while also gathering data for where future services would best be developed. However, it was warned that DRT would never be commercially viable, as due to the relatively smaller number of passengers per driver they were more expensive to run.
· The potential use of shuttle bus/access bus services, taking people who lived away from main roads to other local destinations such as schools and doctor’s surgeries, was discussed.
· The difficulty in tailoring the plan to better connect deprived communities with areas of employment, education, etc, while still ensuring areas with high car-ownership are well-served by buses in order to lower car use and meet carbon targets was discussed. A dichotomy existed between the desire to simplify fares and the bus service in general while meeting the different needs of some of these groups.
· The ‘hub and spoke’ model was discussed. It was noted that this model required frequent and regular services. A trade-off also inevitably existed between having less frequent direct services, and more frequent services that required bus changes.