Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 242 March 19 Final · 3.1 Summarised Electronic Ticket Machine (ETM) data...

Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 242 March 19 Final

Quality Assurance

Document Management

Document Title Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services

Name of File 10242 REP Review of Western Isles Bus Services FINAL.docx

Last Revision Saved On 05/03/2019 16:24:00

Version V1 V2 FINAL V3 FINAL

Prepared by MM/CS/AG MM/CS/AG/JT/BS SW

Checked by SW MM Click&TypeInitials

Approved by SW SW SW

Issue Date 7/12/2018 20/2/2019 5/3/2019

Copyright

The contents of this document are © copyright The TAS Partnership Limited, with the exceptions set out below. Reproduction in any form, in part or in whole, is expressly forbidden without the written consent of a Director of The TAS Partnership Limited.

Cartography derived from Ordnance Survey mapping is reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of HMSO under licence number WL6576 and is © Crown Copyright – all rights reserved.

Other Crown Copyright material, including census data and mapping, policy guidance and official reports, is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under licence number C02W0002869.

The TAS Partnership Limited retains all right, title and interest, including copyright, in or to any of its trademarks, methodologies, products, analyses, software and know-how including or arising out of this document, or used in connection with the preparation of this document. No licence under any copyright is hereby granted or implied.

Most photographs are reproduced with the kind permission of Roger French.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

The TAS Partnership Limited regards the daily and hourly rates that are charged to clients and the terms of engagement under which any projects are undertaken, as trade secrets and therefore exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

The TAS Partnership Limited often uses commercially or personally sensitive data provided under confidentiality agreements by third parties to inform projects and disclosure of this information could constitute an actionable breach of confidence. This detailed content is therefore likely to be exempt from

disclosure under the Act.

Consequently, The TAS Partnership Limited will expect to be consulted before any content of this document is released under a Freedom of Information request.

Guildhall House

59-61 Guildhall Street

Preston PR1 3NU

Telephone: 01772 204988

[email protected]

www.taspartnership.co.uk

http://www.taspartnership.co.uk/

©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ March 19

Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contents ▪ 1

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................ 5

1 Introduction and Objectives ............................................................ 11

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 11

1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................. 11

2 Analysis of Current Contracts .......................................................... 13

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 13

2.2 Current Situation ................................................................................... 13

2.3 Contract Summary – Public Bus ............................................................... 14

2.4 Contract Summary – School Buses ........................................................... 15

2.5 Non-Entitled Pupil Transport .................................................................... 16

2.6 Costs.................................................................................................... 17

2.7 Seasonality ........................................................................................... 19

3 Contract Options and Lotting Strategy .............................................. 21

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 21

3.2 Resource Tenders .................................................................................. 21

3.3 Call-off Contracts ................................................................................... 21

3.4 Operation Only Contracts ........................................................................ 22

3.6 Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations - TUPE ....... 24

3.7 The Need to Register a School Service ...................................................... 24

3.8 PSVAR Definitions .................................................................................. 25

3.9 Control of Pass Issue .............................................................................. 26

3.10 Implications for the Comhairle .............................................................. 27

3.12 Lotting Options for Lewis and Harris ...................................................... 28

3.13 One Contract ...................................................................................... 28

3.14 Geographical Contracts ........................................................................ 29

3.15 Vehicle Workings ................................................................................. 30

3.16 Vehicle Specifications ........................................................................... 31

3.17 Demand Responsive Travel Arrangements .............................................. 32

3.18 Information to Support Contracts .......................................................... 33



4 Case Studies for Tendering ............................................................. 35

4.1 Case Studies ......................................................................................... 35

4.2 Brockenhurst College ............................................................................. 35

4.3 Runshaw College ................................................................................... 35

4.4 Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) .................................................. 36

4.5 Shetland ............................................................................................... 37

4.6 Jersey .................................................................................................. 39

4.7 Summary .............................................................................................. 40

5 Fares and Ticketing Strategy ........................................................... 43

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 43

5.2 Fares Basis ........................................................................................... 43

5.3 Fares Comparisons ................................................................................. 44

5.4 Single and Return Fares .......................................................................... 45

5.5 Multi Journey Tickets .............................................................................. 48

5.6 Future Ticketing Development ................................................................. 50

6 New Contracts - Service Delivery Options ......................................... 53

6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 53

6.2 CnES Selected Options ........................................................................... 53

6.3 ‘School Plus’ Operations .......................................................................... 54

6.4 Reduced Service Provision ...................................................................... 54

6.5 Maintaining the Current Network ............................................................. 55

6.6 Operator Lead Network ........................................................................... 55

6.7 One Contract ......................................................................................... 55

6.8 Cost Apportionment ............................................................................... 56

6.9 Future Fares Strategy ............................................................................. 57

6.10 Fare Change Scenarios ........................................................................ 58

6.11 Fares Alternatives ............................................................................... 60

7 Marketing and Publicity .................................................................. 61

7.1 Current Situation ................................................................................... 61

7.2 Potential Improvement – Day Rover Ticket ............................................... 61

7.3 Website Improvements ........................................................................... 63



8 Operator Consultations ................................................................... 67

8.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 67

8.2 Current and Future ................................................................................ 67

8.3 Larger Lots ........................................................................................... 67

8.4 Revised Service Provision ....................................................................... 67

8.5 Suggested Changes to Current Services.................................................... 68

8.6 Drivers ................................................................................................. 68

8.7 Fares .................................................................................................... 69

8.8 Vehicles ................................................................................................ 69

8.9 Subsidy Adjuster ................................................................................... 70

8.10 Passenger Priorities ............................................................................. 70

8.11 Future Ticketing .................................................................................. 70

8.12 Other Issues ....................................................................................... 71

9 Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ............................................. 73

9.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 73

9.2 Survey Design and Data Issues ............................................................... 73

9.3 Responses ............................................................................................ 74

9.4 Survey Monkey Completion ..................................................................... 74

9.5 Q1a What Service Do You Use the Most .................................................... 75

9.6 Q1b Which Stop Nearest Your Home do you Board at? ................................ 76

9.7 Q1c: Which Stop do you usually Travel to?................................................ 83

9.8 Q1d: What Time do you usually Get on the Bus?........................................ 83

9.9 Q2a: What is the Main Reason for your Journey? ....................................... 85

9.10 Q2b: If you are travelling for Work, which Sector do you Work in? ............ 87

9.11 Q2c: What Time do you Normally Start Work? ........................................ 88

9.12 Q2d: What Time do you Normally Finish Work? ....................................... 89

9.13 Q3: How often do you Travel on this Service? ......................................... 90

9.14 Q4: Do you Travel at the same Time Each Day on this Service? ................ 92

9.15 Q5: What Kind of Ticket do you Use? ..................................................... 93

9.16 Q6: Do you Consider Current Fares Offer Value for Money? ...................... 95

9.17 Q7: Do you Use Any Other Bus Services? ............................................... 96

9.18 Q8-1: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the

Service Ran at Different Times? ...................................................................... 97




Service Ran at a Reduced Frequency? ............................................................ 100


Service had Increased Fares? ........................................................................ 102

9.21 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 104

10 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................ 107

10.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 107

10.2 Recommendations ............................................................................. 111

Appendix A: Passenger Survey Questionnaire .......................................... 113


Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 5

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1.1 The TAS Partnership was appointed by the Comhairle to assist in preparing the

subsidised bus network on Lewis and Harris for retendering in 2019. This

commission was comprised of four main objectives:

Suggest ways of achieving significant cost savings using a range of service

delivery options incorporating a progressive combination of efficiencies and

service reductions designed to meet future transport budget levels;

Set out alternative methods of grouping contracts into geographically or

operationally efficient lots for tendering;

Set out scenarios for service delivery based around the level of provision of

non-statutory journeys (all of those except transport to school which

Scottish law decrees must be provided); and

Examine the effect of various options for increasing bus fares.

2. Contract Summary

2.1 There are currently 48 contracts due to expire in April 2019 using a total of 59

vehicles: 28 coaches, 5 low floor buses, 1 midicoach, 22 minibuses and 3

small minibuses at a total annual cost of £4,195,000 for Lewis and Harris.

2.2 By internal agreement, 48% (£2,013,600) of cost is allocated to the public

network and 52% (£2,181,400) to Mainstream Education transport. On this

basis:

Annual revenue including concessions of £521,000 covers only 21% of

operating costs – thus the Comhairle funds the remaining 79% of net

contract costs;

the subsidy to each passenger on the public network is £6.41 and

school transport costs £9.46 per day per pupil on average.

2.3 We estimate some 312,000 passenger trips and 462,000 trips by school pupils

annually.

3. Data and Operator Consultation

3.1 Summarised Electronic Ticket Machine (ETM) data was supplied but not at as

detailed a level as we first envisaged which limited our input into the network

review. We were able to analyse ticket sales and passenger numbers for a

complete year.



3.2 Interviews with the contractors were carried out as part of the study to gain

insight into the operators’ response to various proposed changes to the

network and feedback on current practices. The feedback provided by the

operators was largely aligned in opinion, key points of response were that:

Overall no contractors felt safe to overbid for any contract;

Smaller lots were felt to give CnES better value for money, as it allows

smaller operators to bid on their own account;

A school focussed (rather than a school only) network was met with a

generally positive response, although some operators noted their services

are already run in the same fashion;

The suggestion of replacing coaches with low floor buses was met with

negative responses from the operators who primarily used coaches, they

felt that the terrain was not appropriate and that the public use was better

served by coaches.

Moving to contactless payment methods and QR codes generated some

interest;

3.3 Other issues noted from discussion with contractors highlighted the lack of

notice between contract award and start date – this has led to short notice

registrations with the traffic commissioner and can create issues with sourcing

additional vehicles to fulfil the contract.

4. Passenger Survey

4.1 The survey was carried out in December 2018. Forms were available online,

with printed versions available in Stornoway and Tarbert. There were 470

responses in total. There were some clear findings which should be considered

in producing the revised network:

Noting the pre-Christmas timing, shopping was the predominant trip

purpose (239 out of 470 respondents) but only slightly ahead of

employment (220 out of 470);

4.2 It is a mistake to assume that employment-related trips occur solely on 'peak'

journeys or that passengers travel to and from work at fixed times every day,

a significant number has a range of times to finish work and in particular;

48% of those travelling 'daily' said that they didn't travel at the same time

every day; and

There was a significant number of work trips after 1800;

4.3 The proportion of health-related trips was unusually high at around 15%. This

is around three times the 'norm'. Any significant reduction in service levels



would put pressure - including increased transport demands - on health

agencies and reduce the opportunity for patients to attend appointments;

4.4 Passengers were, in general, much less resistant to changes to times or

increases in fares than they were to reduced levels of service, when asked:

44% said they would travel less frequently if times changed;

70% said they would travel less frequently if the service was reduced but

only

36% said they would travel less frequently if fares increased.

5. Lotting Options for New Contracts

5.1 CnES has produced nine scenarios for tendering the new network. It intends to

accept bids for all nine scenarios. These are:

1. Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr before 0900 leave after 1700) and

transport for entitled pupils only (School Plus);

2. Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr before 0900 leave after 1700) and

transport for both entitled and non-entitled pupils (School Plus)

3. Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr for 0800 and 0900 leave after 1700 and

1800), reduced inter-peak service and transport for entitled pupils only

(Reduced Service Provision);

4. Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr for 0800 and 0900 leave after 1700 and

1800), reduced inter-peak service and transport for both entitled and non-

entitled pupils (Reduced Service Provision);

5. Maintaining the current network in its entirety;

6. Geographical larger lots including commuter runs to Stornoway, reduced

inter-peak service defined by the operator and transport for entitled pupils

only (Operator Lead Network);

7. Geographical larger lots including commuter runs to Stornoway, reduced

inter-peak service defined by the operator and transport for both entitled

and non-entitled pupils (Operator Lead Network);

8. Have the whole network as one contract, allowing the operator to provide

what it can within the budget given after transport for entitled pupils is

provided; and

9. Have the whole network as one contract, allowing the operator to provide

what it can within the budget given after transport for both entitled and

non-entitled pupils is provided.



5.2 Other than in scenario 5 the assumption is that there is no evening service

provided. Selecting from Options 1 to 7 is chiefly a matter of the level of

available finance. In the main report we examine the pros and cons of each

option.

5.3 In Options 1 and 2 with the public service reduced to a single commuter run

into Stornoway before 0900 and leaving Stornoway after 1700 we have

concerns that driver retention might be difficult with no work between peaks

and that TUPE regulations would result in drivers being paid to do no work.

Also that there might be undue expense if the equivalent school run is of a

length that it cannot return to Stornoway by 1730, thus needing a second

vehicle.

5.4 We have a number of concerns regarding letting all contracts as a single lot,

chiefly the restricted number of available bidders, the adverse effect on the

level of competition for future contracts and the potential business failure of

the single contractor.

5.5 Note that the decision regarding whether or not to provide transport for non-

entitled pupils is essentially a Comhairle policy matter. The difference in cost is

only one consideration. If transport for non-entitled pupils is withdrawn, the

fundamental issue is to ask how these pupils will continue to attend school.

6. January 2020 Legal Position for Bus Operation

6.1 On 1 January 2020 the final stage of the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility

Regulations comes into force, affecting coaches. All coaches on a scheduled

service must meet accessibility requirements. PSVAR does not apply to any

operation which is not classed as a ‘scheduled service’. CnES then has three

options for school transport provision:

Closed Door Contract - carrying only pupils who are transported free of

charge. These do not need to be registered, nor do they need to comply

with PSVAR.

Closed Door Contract with Farepaying Pupils - These do not need to be

registered, nor do they need to comply with PSVAR. But ALL pupils must be

carried to the same school or college; farepayers must all be charged the

same amount; the operator must take no part in selling the tickets and the

journey must NOT be advertised in a public timetable.

Standard School Contract with Farepaying Pupils - The Comhairle is free to

charge pupils as it wishes and to include other members of the general

public and may pick up and set down at any timetabled point. But it MUST

be registered as a local bus service, operate to a set route and timetable

and therefore must also comply with PSVAR.



7. Fares and Ticketing

7.1 From comparison against similar areas, it is clear that fares on the CnES

network are generally lower than on comparator operations. Fares on the

CnES network are at a level where even significant increases are insufficient to

prompt existing travellers to abandon the bus in favour of private transport;

the reactions from the survey were far less negative to fare increases than to

frequency reductions. Yet our experience elsewhere informs us that reactions

to above-inflation increases will be negative.

7.2 We recommend the introduction of a network day ticket at a premium price

and aimed mainly at visitors, but its usefulness depends on the extent of the

future network.

7.3 There have been suggestions regarding moving towards the introduction of

alternative payment methods for tickets, particularly smartcards. However it is

our understanding that smartcards are quickly becoming overtaken by other

alternative means that are more cost effective to introduce, such as

contactless ticket purchase, QR codes on paper tickets and phone app type

payment methods.

8. Marketing and Publicity

8.1 Our major concern is that many of the CnES timetables are over-complex and

difficult to understand and not presented in the simplest and most penetrable

format and recommended that effort was put into simplification.


Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Introduction and Objectives ▪ 11

1Introduction and Objectives 1

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 The TAS Partnership Ltd (TAS) was commissioned by Comhairle nan Eilean

Siar (CnES) to assist in preparing the subsidised bus network on Lewis and

Harris for retendering in 2019.

1.2 Objectives

1.2.1 There were four main objectives set, these were to:

a) Suggest ways of achieving significant cost savings using a range of service

delivery options incorporating a progressive combination of efficiencies and

service reductions designed to meet future transport budget levels;

b) Set out alternative methods of grouping contracts into geographically or

operationally efficient lots for tendering;

c) Set out scenarios for service delivery based around the level of provision of

non-statutory journeys (all of those except transport to school which

Scottish law decrees must be provided); and

d) Examine the effect of various options for increasing bus fares.

1.2.2 In addition to this we sought to:

Examine and provide feedback on previous tendering documentation;

Analyse current fares and ticketing and suggest future strategies;

Analyse current marketing methods and suggest future strategies;

Consult with current operators and

Carry out a survey of passengers.


Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Analysis of Current Contracts ▪ 13

2Analysis of Current Contracts 2

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 This section looks at the current situation in regard to passenger usage by

service and by ticket type. It also looks at costs and seasonal fluctuations.

2.2 Current Situation

2.2.1 The existing contracts for the provision of bus services on Lewis and Harris

were secured through a tendering process that commenced in October 2013.

Details of the services required were advertised on the Public Contracts

Scotland (“PCS”) Portal and in the Official Journal of the European Union. The

tender return date was 18 November and the services commenced operation

on 1 April 2014. All daytime contracts were awarded for five years. The

evening service contracts were let for one year with a one year extension.

2.2.2 The new contracts were originally expected to commence on 1 April 2019. The

current likelihood now is that the current contracts will be extended to August

2019 with the option of a further extension to 1 December. The August date

implies the need to place the contracts on Public Contracts Scotland around

the end of February 2019 to allow sufficient time for the required 30 day

notice period, a standstill period after award and sufficient lead time for the

operators.

2.2.3 Each bus service falls into one of four categories:

‘Principal Integrated’: covering Monday to Saturday daytime operations on

the main trunk services and containing multiple vehicle workings;

‘Feeder or Local Integrated’: operating services from villages that connect

with the Principal Integrated services at designated interchange points;

‘School Only’: usually operated by large vehicles that are required where

the volume of scholars would overwhelm the standard service; and

‘Public Evening or Early Morning’: additional journeys on the main Principal

Integrated services at times outside the Monday to Saturday daytime

timetable

2.2.4 A summary of the existing contract distribution is shown in Table 1. It should

be noted that the vehicles operating the Public Evening or Early Morning

services are likely to be used to provide other services during the main part of

the day and so have no impact upon the total vehicle requirement.

2.2.5 Much of the network is specified for operation by coaches, but with effect from

1 January 2020 such vehicles, if registered on or after 1 January 2001 and



having a seating capacity of 23 or more, must comply with the Public Service

Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR) when used on bus services

open to the general public1. This is discussed further in section 3.8. We

understand that only a small number of the coach type vehicles currently in

use on CnES contracted services are PSVAR compliant.

Table 1: Current CnES Bus Service Contracts

Service Category Number

of Contracts

Vehicles Required Current Annual

Cost

Principal Integrated 5 16 coaches, 5 low floor buses, 3

minibuses

£2,286,200

Feeder or Local Integrated 16 1 coach, 15 minibuses, 2 small

minibuses

£847,700

School Only 17 11 coaches, 1 midicoach, 4

minibuses, 1 small minibus

£780,800

Public Evening or Early

Morning

10 2 low floor buses, 1 midicoach, 7

minibuses

£280,300

Total 48 28 coaches, 5 low floor buses, 1

midicoach, 22 minibuses, 3 small

minibuses

£4,195,000

2.3 Contract Summary – Public Bus

2.3.1 We have been supplied with summary electronic ticket machine (ETM) records

for the year between April 2017 and March 2018, split into four quarterly

batches relating to passenger numbers and on-bus revenue by ticket type and

1 The ‘general public’ includes schoolchildren when they pay fares.



service and six two-monthly sets relating to passenger boarding and alighting

points.

2.3.2 The full year’s data reveals that:

311,898 passengers were recorded,

On-bus revenue totalled £348,050.

Concessionary fare reimbursement from Transport Scotland (including for

Young Scot passes) amounted to £173,112;

Giving total revenue of £521,163.

2.3.3 Contracts for evening services are made separately and they will be an

obvious target for cost saving, yet we have no available data which shows

their level of usage. The survey (see section 9.8 et. seq.) suggests a relatively

high level of usage but these could have been ‘protective’ answers.

2.4 Contract Summary – School Buses



2.4.1 It is apparent from the ETM data that in general the use of scholars’ passes is

not recorded2. Therefore overall passenger numbers are likely to be

significantly higher than those reported above and the overall subsidy per

passenger correspondingly lower. We therefore needed to make some

estimate of school trips. Table 2 below uses data supplied by CnES to list

pupils travelling to each school on Lewis and Harris by bus and whether such

trips are statutory (‘Entitled’) or discretionary (‘Paying or EDA’).

2.4.2 These total 1,350 pupils who have some form of entitlement to daily travel to

and from school for 190 days of term. This allows us to calculate an annual

pupil ridership figure. Experience elsewhere has shown that it is improbable

that all pupils travel every day so we have applied a discount factor of ten per

cent to estimate actual annual trips. We therefore calculate the number of bus

trips by pupils to be 461,700 per year.

2.4.3 In the italicised right hand column of Table 2 there are other pupils in the

‘Could Pay’ category which are included here because they were in the CnES

data. We are unsure as to their status, whether they travel by bus or not.

They are not, therefore, included in the above calculation.

2.5 Non-Entitled Pupil Transport

2.5.1 Non-entitled pupils who currently use school buses fall into two groups. There

are those provided with dedicated school buses which operate services less

than the statutory distance from school and the second group buys tickets in

advance to travel on school buses alongside entitled children.

2.5.2 In the former case, removal of any dedicated school bus is likely to be

politically controversial but it is something that other local authorities have

had to face, notably following decisions to withdraw free transport to

denominational (primarily Roman Catholic) schools.

2.5.3 The second group pose different issues. Firstly that they pay very little for

travel to and from school. On average CnES pays £9.46 per day for transport

of an entitled pupil. Non-entitled pupils pay as little as forty five pence per day

up to a maximum of £2.20 per day. Secondly, what would these pupils do if

transport was to be withdrawn? The latter is an important issue to consider if

transport available to the general public is provided alongside dedicated school

transport. The non-entitled pupils are ‘the general public’ and could easily

overcrowd some buses at school time.

2.5.4 Provision of such transport is a policy decision for CnES.

2 There were some 2,474 uses of passes to Edward Scott School recorded. This equates to something like thirteen per schoolday which is a gross underestimate of the likely level of travel. Therefore we have disregarded these uses and included Sire Edward Scott School in the subsequent school travel calculations.



Table 2: Scholars’ Passes by School (2017/18 Data)

School Name Location

School

Roll

% By

Bus Entitled

Paying

or E.D.A

Could

Pay

Back Back Village 99 60% 40 19 35

Bernera Breacleit, Bernera 12 83% 10

Breasclete Breasclete Village 34 35% 8 4 4

Laxdale Laxdale , Stornoway 167 35% 1 57 63

Leverhulme Leverburgh, Harris 29 38% 10 1 4

Lionel Lionel, Ness 66 42% 21 7 31

Pairc Gravir Village 27 74% 20

Sgoil an Rubha Bayble, Point 138 65% 60 30 40

Sgoil an Toabh Siar Barvas Village 64 80% 50 1 1

Sgoil nan Loch Leurbost Village 97 87% 82 2

Shawbost Shawbost Village 53 47% 24 1 11

Sir E Scott (primary) Tarbert, Harris 86 20% 17

Sir E Scott (secondary) Tarbert, Harris 87 94% 67 15

Stornoway Primary Stornoway Town 462 16% 56 17 53

The Nicolson Institute Stornoway Town 1,043 68% 617 91 105

Tolsta Tolsta Village 27 0% 18

Tong Tong Village 93 4% 4 35

Uig Timsgarry, Uig District 18 100% 18

Lewis and Harris Total 2,595 52% 1,084 266 400

2.6 Costs

2.6.1 The annual total cost to CnES of the Lewis and Harris bus network is

£4,195,000, with, by internal agreement, 48% (£2,013,600) allocated to the

public network and 52% (£2,181,400) to mainstream Education transport. On

this basis:

revenue (£521k) is covering only 20.6% of costs3 with the net cost to The

Comhairle covering the remaining 79.4%;

the subsidy per passenger on the public network is £6.41 and

each school transport trip per pupil costs £4.73 on average.

2.6.2 The network-wide distribution of recorded tickets and the resulting revenue is

shown in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure A and Figure B. Taken together

concessionary travellers (excluding Young Scot and forming 46.7% of

3 Costs are taken to be the sum of subsidy plus revenue.



passengers) and users of traditional adult and child single and return tickets

comprise 91.4% of all recorded passengers.

2.6.3 Despite efforts to encourage their use through preferential pricing the take up

of ten journey tickets, in both weekly and two-weekly formats, is low and their

use represents only 0.5% of all recorded passenger journeys.

Table 3: Distribution of Tickets and Revenue (By Volume)

Ticket Type Records On Bus Revenue Off Bus Revenue Total Revenue

Concession 145,620 £0 £169,243 £169,243

Adult Single 86,411 £168,474 £0 £168,474

Adult Return 26,945 £113,949 £0 £113,949

Child Single 26,245 £25,071 £0 £25,071

Punch 20,471 £0 £0 £0

Child Return 2,160 £4,610 £0 £4,610

Young Scot 1,964 £3,869 £3,869 £7,738

Adult 10 Journey 1,647 £29,143 £0 £29,143

Rover 388 £2,483 £0 £2,483

Child 10 Journey 47 £450 £0 £450

Total 311,898 £348,050 £173,112 £521,163

Figure A: Passenger Distribution by Ticket Type



Figure B: Revenue Distribution by Ticket Type

2.7 Seasonality

2.7.1 Across the network as a whole the January to March quarter has the lowest

passenger numbers with the October to December quarter only slightly higher.

In contrast the April to June and the July to September quarters see loadings

at 19% and 25% above the base level respectively.

2.7.2 The most extreme examples in absolute numbers are services W2, W5 and

W10 but in terms of the percentage variation services W11 and W13 have a

busiest quarter with more than double the passenger numbers of the lowest. A

comparison of the actual passenger numbers by service and quarter is shown

in Table 4, while the total patronage by quarter is in Figure C.



Table 4: Passenger Numbers by Service and Quarter

Service April - June July - September October - December January - March

W1 11,640 11,872 10,204 10,935

W2 13,878 14,619 10,815 10,251

W3 550 706 735 638

W4 366 376 395 476

W5 36,383 39,144 33,187 32,705

W7 2,807 3,092 2,780 2,597

W8 4,308 3,893 4,447 3,962

W9 758 725 659 558

W10 8,895 10,003 5,896 5,516

W11 419 166 266 224

W12 77 113 128 127

W13 1,843 1,751 1,286 885

W14 1,895 1,764 1,613 1,592

Network 83,819 88,224 72,411 70,466

Figure C: Total Passengers on the Public Network by Season


Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Contract Options and Lotting Strategy ▪ 21

3Contract Options and Lotting Strategy 3

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Within this section we look at the various ways in which services can be

tendered and some of the established and new legal requirements as well as

future options for the Bus na Comhairle operation.

3.1.2 As stated in 2.2.3 services are grouped into four categories. The current

tendering method uses these categories to form the basis of the lots. Services

are contracted out either as a whole or split between ‘Integrated’ (daytime)

and Evening services. School journeys which are not open to the public are

mostly tendered separately.

3.2 Resource Tenders

3.2.1 Resource tendering is when the Comhairle, rather than specifying a route,

timetable and vehicle type instead specifies only the vehicle type and driver

requirements for a particular time period, but the precise nature of the route is

to be solely at the Comhairle’s discretion within the confines of the other

contract constraints.

3.2.2 For example, the Comhairle may specify a 16 seat vehicle and appropriate

driver for a period between 0730 and 1700 on schooldays only. It then uses

the vehicle as it sees fit to optimise use on home to school transport, adult

social care, public transport operation etc. The price is based on one or more

fixed rates, usually with a variation rate for mileage and/or time.

3.2.3 The Comhairle then bears the risk that the transport demand is not aligned to

supply, but the operator shares some of the commercial risk. It is similar in

nature to the current in-house transport delivery in that it is for the Comhairle

to maximise use of the resource through better planning and must seek to

optimise use of the resources available, except with the risk of industry cost

pressure being shared with the contractor while using their potentially superior

operational delivery expertise and lower cost base.

3.2.4 This approach could be used within a Framework, provided the potential for

this is notified in the Invitation to Tender. There is some potential for

application in CnES - this will become clearer when the rescheduling exercise

has been completed.

3.3 Call-off Contracts

3.3.1 This will be required where is a need to respond to additional transport

demand at short notice, especially for solo or low occupancy transport for



children’s social care, additional support needs and adult social care transport

or when a contractor ceases trading at short notice.

3.3.2 We recognise that this is out of scope for this immediate exercise, but it is still

a requirement that needs to be procured, which means developing a contract

structure which provides suitable levels of flexibility to mobilise at short notice,

while continuing to demonstrate probity, cost-effectiveness and quality of

service.

3.3.3 Call-off contracts are suitable for these needs as they allow for short notice

journeys to be mobilised at previously agreed rates while allowing operator

flexibility. There is always a need to continue to demonstrate cost

effectiveness, as there is the potential for call-off contractors to attempt to

renegotiate or decline the request to undertake the journey if they do not

possess sufficient capacity to deliver when requested.

3.4 Operation Only Contracts

3.4.1 Operation only contracts occur when the Comhairle acquires one or more

vehicles and makes these available to tenderers on an operation-only basis.

3.4.2 This approach may be useful where:

The Comhairle has easy access to capital. This would then result in reduced

revenue expenditure on the contract. The utility may depend upon the

relative cost of capital to the Comhairle and to the operator and the

diversion of this capital from more effective use elsewhere;

The Comhairle wants to assist smaller operators to develop – particularly to

move from private hire operation into local bus operation;

The Comhairle wants a particular specification of vehicles to be deployed

e.g. all-electric;

The Comhairle already owns the vehicle resource.

3.4.3 There could be a significant price differential between a vehicle purchase by

the Comhairle and leasing by the operator. The operator is unlikely to

purchase a new vehicle if wholly dependent on a fixed-term contract of, say,

five years and is more likely to lease a vehicle over a five year period. At the

end of the contract the operator has no guaranteed use for the vehicle.

Extensions of the agreed lease period can also be expensive.

3.4.4 The Comhairle could have easy and relatively cheap access to capital to

finance a new vehicle and, in addition, can simply transfer the vehicle to the

new contractor. Operation-only could well be a way forward for the

introduction of PSVAR compliant vehicles on the CnES network.



3.5 Minimum Subsidy (Net Cost) versus Minimum Cost (Gross Cost)

3.5.1 CnES has adopted a minimum subsidy approach when tendering for public bus

service contracts. The Comhairle pays a fixed contract price and the operator

retains all the revenue from the service (including concessionary fares) and

the commercial risk. The net cost to the authority is therefore fixed (other

than through agreed price change mechanisms) and depends on the operator’s

estimate of the shortfall of revenue against operating costs. However, given

that the Comhairle designs all the services and sets the maximum fares,

operators have, in practice, little freedom to undertake route development and

associated marketing.

3.5.2 An alternative approach is the minimum cost model where the Comhairle pays

the operator a fixed contract rate (again subject to agreed price change

mechanisms) based on the gross cost of the operation but then receives all

the revenue from the service. The net contract cost is therefore variable and

the authority carries the commercial risk.

3.5.3 There is a belief within CnES that some operators are not currently factoring in

sufficient or indeed any fare income into their bids and so we would suggest

that for all public bus services tenderers are invited to submit bids both on the

basis of the contractor taking the revenue risk (minimum subsidy) and the

Comhairle taking the revenue risk (minimum cost). Obviously this distinction

does not apply to ‘closed door’ school contracts.

3.5.4 It should be noted that if the ‘minimum cost’ model is adopted the Comhairle

will need to monitor and market the services to ensure that fares are being

collected and fare revenue maximised. On the up-side it would enable the

Comhairle to undertake more active marketing, particularly through focused

pricing offers on an area basis. There would also be no argument over through

tickets and whose revenue was whose.

3.5.5 Transport Scotland’s Concessionary Fares and Bus Service Operators’ Grant

arrangements specify that claims MUST be filed by the operator holding the

service registration. Under a minimum cost scenario, CnES would need to

ensure that these submissions are appropriately lodged and the income

diverted to it, although it is feasible or indeed desirable for CnES to act as

agent in preparing claims. Shetland Islands Council tenders its services on a

gross-cost basis and carries out all of the back-office functions including

preparation of concessionary claims by the operators.

3.5.6 We understand that the Comhairle has decided to opt for net cost contracts,

not wishing to be involved in revenue handling, leaving revenue risk with the

operators. There is a Scottish distinction here in that concessionary revenue

must be claimed by the operator under the terms of the Transport Scotland

scheme. In England, the Travel Concession Authority simply reimburses itself

or foregoes the reimbursement process. Within a gross-cost scenario, the



Comhairle would not only need to ensure that claims were submitted but that

the appropriate funds were then transferred.

3.6 Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations - TUPE

3.6.1 A potential change of contractors, including a transfer to or from the

Comhairle’s in-house operation, brings TUPE into consideration. Whilst a

completely new or radically different service might be exempt from TUPE (e.g.

requiring new skills or a different licence) in most cases this exemption will not

apply.

3.6.2 In 2006, the Scottish Government provided detailed statutory guidance on this

issue and this still applies4. Contractors need to be warned in advance that

TUPE may apply and should be asked to provide Comhairle with the necessary

information about staff terms and conditions in advance of the contract expiry

to enable it to comply with its duties. A requirement to provide this

information in a timely manner should be contained in the relevant conditions

of contract. This personal information must be treated confidentially within the

Comhairle.

3.7 The Need to Register a School Service

3.7.1 The need to register a school bus as a local service hinges on the concepts of

operating for hire and reward, which brings in the concept of separate fares.

The Driver & Vehicle Services Agency (DVSA) definition of hire or reward (with

our emphasis in bold) is based on s1(5) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act

1981:

“is any payment in cash or kind which gives a person the right to be carried,

regardless of whether or not that right is exercised. It is also regardless of

whether or not a profit is made. The payment may be made to the operator,

the driver or any agent or representative acting on behalf of the

operator. The payment may be made by the passenger, or on the

passenger’s behalf. It may be (a) a direct payment (e.g. a fare) or (b) an

indirect payment (this could be an exchange for services such as a

membership subscription to a club, payment for a bed in a hotel, school fees

or payment for concert tickets where travel is included; the payment does not

have to be money and the right to travel does not need to be taken up).”5

3.7.2 Transport Scotland’s Form PSV353A gives guidance on the need for

registration of local bus services. It exempts services which, although they

collect fares either directly or indirectly, satisfy four conditions:

4 https://www.gov.scot/publications/statutory-guidance-local-authorities-contracting/pages/0/ 5 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194259/PSV_Operator_Licensing_Guide.pdf

https://www.gov.scot/publications/statutory-guidance-local-authorities-contracting/pages/0/

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194259/PSV_Operator_Licensing_Guide.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194259/PSV_Operator_Licensing_Guide.pdf



“schools and works services may be local services if any of the users pays a

separate fare (especially if passengers pay different amounts depending on

how far they travel). But this type of service is not a local service and does not

have to be registered if all of the following conditions apply:

Someone other than the operator or his agent is responsible for arranging

the journey and for bringing the passengers together;

The journey is not advertised beforehand to the general public;

All passengers travel to or from the same place (e.g. a school or factory);

and

Passengers pay the same fare no matter how far they travel.”6

3.7.3 It is clear, therefore, that any school service which carries non-entitled pupils

who pay either graduated fares collected on the bus or a monthly ‘season

ticket’ bought from the Comhairle at a range of prices dependent on distance

is operating for hire and reward and therefore should operate as a local service

registered with the Traffic Commissioner. Note that journeys would fail the

above test if either they appeared in the Comhairle’s timetable or, perhaps

more importantly, they served more than one school. ‘Closed door’ operations

carrying only entitled children have no such restrictions provided, of course,

that none of the passengers pays.

3.8 PSVAR Definitions

3.8.1 The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR) defines

which categories of service must be compliant with the regulations and

introduces a new concept – that of the ‘scheduled service’ as distinct from a

‘local bus service’ (again with our emphasis in bold):

“Application

3.—(1) These Regulations apply to public service vehicles of the types

described respectively in paragraphs (2) to (7) (a “regulated public service

vehicle”) in the manner and to the extent set out in this Part.

(9) In paragraphs (2) to (7)—

references to a vehicle being “used” or “in use” means the regulated public

service vehicle is being used to provide either a local service or a scheduled

service.

6 Transport Scotland Form PSV353A para 4



Interpretation

2.—(1) In these Regulations—

“local service” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Transport Act

1985(5);

“scheduled service” means a service, using one or more public service

vehicles, for the carriage of passengers at separate fares —

a) along specified routes,

b) at specified times, and

c) with passengers being taken up and set down at pre-determined stopping

points, but does not include a tour service;

“tour service” means a service where a public service vehicle is used for or in

conjunction with the carriage of passengers to a particular location, or

particular locations, and back to their point of departure;

3.8.2 School contracts which carry fare-paying pupils satisfy all four criteria specified

in PSVAR, therefore will automatically fall within the definition of ‘scheduled

service’ and PSVAR will apply to all vehicles with a capacity of 22 or over from

1 January 2020. Note that a ‘scheduled service’ requires the carriage of

passengers at separate fares. Closed door contracts carrying only entitled

pupils fall outside this category for this reason and are therefore exempt from

PSVAR.

3.8.3 The important conclusion here is that any service using larger vegicles

which carries non-entitled farepaying children at varying fares MUST

comply with PSVAR.

3.9 Control of Pass Issue

3.9.1 There is an important issue of control here. As Education & Children’s Services

issue the passes to non-entitled children while Communities contract the

buses, it is quite conceivable that some passes could be sold for travel on a

previously ‘closed door’ contract which then alters its status unknown to the

contracting department. This needs to be a ‘tighter’ arrangement and,

whatever future option for non-entitled children is followed, a close watch

needs to be kept.



3.10 Implications for the Comhairle

3.10.1 CnES has three options for school transport provision:

a) Closed Door Contract – carrying only pupils who are transported free of

charge. These do not need to be registered, nor do they need to comply

with PSVAR.

b) Closed Door Contract with Farepaying Pupils - These do not need to be

registered, nor do they need to comply with PSVAR. But ALL pupils must

be carried to the same school or college; farepayers must all be charged

the same amount; the operator must take no part in selling the tickets and

the journey must NOT be advertised in a public timetable.

c) Standard School Contract with Farepaying Pupils – The Comhairle is free to

charge pupils as it wishes and to include other members of the general

public and may pick up and set down at any timetabled point. But it MUST

be registered as a local bus service, operate to a set route and timetable7

and therefore must also comply with PSVAR.

3.10.2 Note that while services under a) and b) can be amended as and when

needed, services under c) are subject to the normal process for registration

changes.

3.10.3 Failure to comply with the above lies with the operator, even if it is simply

following the contract specification. There does not yet appear to have been

any prosecution for failure to comply with PSVAR but prosecutions and Traffic

Commissioner’s inquiries have been commonplace – particularly in Scotland -

for running unregistered services and failure to comply with a service

registration. It would be very unwise of the Comhairle, however, to specify an

operation in a contract which fell outside the law.

3.11 The Future of Bus na Comhairle

3.11.1 The Comhairle already has a passenger fleet operation used primarily to

provide the two elements of service W5. In theory, it would be possible to

expand this to provide additional local bus and mainstream home to school

services if tendered or negotiated prices are considered to be unreasonably

high or there are no bids at all.

3.11.2 The decision on whether to consider this option as a practical solution to the

lack of competition hinges on benchmarking the current and possibly

expanded fleet operating costs, including all corporate overheads, against the

cost of securing the service by competitive tender and the limitations of CnES’

depot accommodation, which is shared with other council vehicles.

7 Service registrations do allow an element of deviation from the route on demand if this is specified in the service registration.



3.11.3 One option would be for the Comhairle to consider a modest expansion in the

fleet size and then allocate those vehicles to contracts where bids have come

in at ‘unreasonably’ high prices. We understand that this may create issues

around depot capacity, although this presupposes that an expanded fleet

would be housed at the current location.

3.12 Lotting Options for Lewis and Harris

3.12.1 There are three alternative ways in which CnES could seek to group the

contracts for the 2019 tender process. These are:

As one large contract;

Medium or small sized geographical groupings or

Individual vehicle workings.

3.12.2 These have led in to the method of tendering decided on by CnES and

discussed in section 6.

3.13 One Contract

3.13.1 It may be possible that an operator would be willing to take on the whole

network as one contract with relevant services sub-contracted to other

operators. The positives are:

CnES would only have to deal with one operator;

Any issues regarding performance of sub-contractors are for the main

contractor and not CnES to deal with; and

There would be no issues regarding inter-acceptance of ticketing.

Although this factor is within CnES’ ‘gift’ within contract specification.

3.13.2 There are of course a number of potential downsides to this approach which

are:

The risk of contract failure created by collapse of the single contractor,

especially if it has underestimated the size of the job or costs;

Leading to the need for a ‘plan B’ to institute in an emergency;



The difficulty of a single contractor mobilising sufficient (60-70) vehicles and

drivers etc. within the lead time;

The probable closure of the CnES Bus na Comhairle operation, incurring

redundancy cost and ongoing pension liabilities;

At the same time, operators losing work have little incentive to maintain

services up to the transfer date, particularly if staff leave or ‘defect’ to the

new operator;

The risk that operators unwilling or not selected for subcontracting would

close down as a result and hence reduce competition for subsequent

contracts; and

Potential legal challenge to the award, especially if a consortium of

operators won the contract to the exclusion of others, which could be

deemed anti-competitive.

3.14 Geographical Contracts

3.14.1 The public bus network on Lewis and Harris has certain obvious geographical

groupings which can vary in size depending how large a contract CnES wishes

to tender. Given the lack of cross Tarbert journeys on the W10 it would be

easy to split this service in two with one contract covering the Stornoway

journeys (W10N) and the other covering Leverburgh journeys (W10H),

although this idea had little support from operators8. Table 5 sets out the

service groups for large contracts and Table 6 for smaller contracts.

3.14.2 The main advantages of the larger geographical lots are:

Feeder and main services are operated by the same operator thus there is

no revenue or through ticketing issue; and

Changes to timetables may allow greater interworking of services to save

vehicles.

3.14.3 Closed door school contracts can be set out in a similar manner. The main

issue to watch is that these services do not (yet) require PSVAR compliant

vehicles, however if the vehicle then goes onto work a public service then it

must be compliant. Note that there is no need to parcel together school and

public services along the same corridor in the same lot. There may be

advantages in keeping them separate as they suit operators with different

business models. Note that services W6 and W7 are excluded from Table 6 as

these could, as currently, have journeys split between different contracts.

8 See section 8.4



Table 5: Possible Public Service Lotting – Large

Areas Stornoway Ness Westside Eastside Harris

Services W5, W6 &

W7

W1 & W1A W2, W2A,

W3 & W4

W8, W8A, W9,

W9A, W10N,

W10B

W10H, W11,

W12, W13,

W14 & W15

Table 6: Possible Public Service Lotting – Small

Areas Stornoway Ness Westside South West Eastside Harris North

Harris South

Services W5 W1 & W1A W2 & W2A W3 & W4 W8, W8A,

W9, W9A &

W10B

W10N,

W11, W12

& W14

W10H,

W13 &

W15

3.15 Vehicle Workings

3.15.1 At the other end of the spectrum every vehicle working could be regarded as a

single contract. The key benefit of this approach is that each vehicle could

cover a number of services thus increasing efficiency rather than sitting

unproductively in Stornoway or Tarbert for an hour or so between journeys if

vehicles are deployed solely on one service.

3.15.2 The main downside to this approach is that a key service may be provided by

a number of different operators throughout the day, which could create issues



both with having drivers with sufficient route knowledge to undertake the work

and the acceptance of a return and other tickets issued by other operators.

The latter can, of course, be overcome by including ticket acceptance

conditions within the terms of contracts.

3.15.3 An additional disadvantage is that, without careful planning, it may increase

the proportion of vehicle workings which require large enough vehicles to cope

with school journeys, thus increasing costs.

3.16 Vehicle Specifications

3.16.1 In any area where there is still an amount of service operation by vehicles

which do not comply with PSVAR there will be opinions expressed that roads

and the terrain are not suitable for low-floor buses. Certainly this was the case

in Shetland and in Cornwall, Western Greyhound often expressed this opinion.

However, low floor buses now operate successfully in both areas. The only

route in Shetland exempted now is the ‘Overland’ service which has clearance

issues driving onto and off a ferry and uses a lift-equipped small coach.

3.16.2 However, there remains the issue of the appropriateness of low floor buses

with standard seating for some of the journey lengths in Harris and Lewis. This

is an issue also faced and not yet successfully resolved, by the Welsh

Government on its Traws Cymru network.



3.17 Demand Responsive Travel Arrangements

3.17.1 There is currently a variety of time limits for booking demand responsive

services. These vary between trips on certain routes which may create some

level of confusion to potential passengers. A standard time limit should be set

even if this is “services should be booked no later than three hours before

hand”. Introducing an app would allow bookings to be made closer to

departure time through this method but not via phone.

3.17.2 The reliance on telephone booking is perhaps technologically outdated with

online booking and apps now fairly common in the UK mainland taxi trade and

for some demand-responsive bus services. The online booking facility at least

should be relatively easy and inexpensive to establish. Given the nature of the

clientele of DRT services, however, with a tendency to older users, it is

important to retain a system that does not exclude a significant cohort of

potential users.

3.17.3 The main issue is for CnES to make sure that it purchases the correct system.

A recent client of TAS had purchased the Trapeze booking system which also

theoretically allows scheduling of a DRT service but the system was seen as

unreliable and difficult to use, while another had returned to a manual

wallchart accompanied by ‘Post-It’ notes!



3.18 Information to Support Contracts

3.18.1 As the Comhairle has decided that the operators will retain revenue risk under

the new contracts, we feel that supply of some sort of patronage and revenue

figures from the existing operations would:

a) Ensure that the Comhairle obtains best value for money;

b) Allow the operators to make more accurate bids and

c) Would remove any knowledge advantage that the incumbent operator

would otherwise have.


Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Case Studies for Tendering ▪ 35

4Case Studies for Tendering 4

4.1 Case Studies

4.1.1 This section outlines a number of different ways in which contracts have been

let and their outcomes.

4.2 Brockenhurst College

4.2.1 Brockenhurst College is a large tertiary education establishment covering large

swathes of Hampshire and Dorset. Go South Coast was commissioned in April

2018 to provide new services for the college through its existing brands

(morebus, Salisbury Reds and Bluestar).

4.2.2 For an initial 27 months Go South Coast provides a number of dedicated

services for College students and gives them access to a wider bus network.

As well as conventional services it provides 28 special services to and from

Brockenhurst College. These services span a 20 mile radius and operate

outside traditional college times giving students the opportunity to use the

service for leisure activities or for late starts and early finishes. There is an

added bonus for the wider community as the services are available to

members of the public.

4.2.3 Previously the contract was operated by FirstGroup with Yellow Buses as its

sub-contractor. Between them they operated 14 home to college routes in an

area between Bournemouth and Salisbury. The contract was intended to last

three years with an opportunity to extend it for a further two years, but First

handed the contract back after March 2018. The total value of the contract

was £3,747,825, divided equally between First and Yellow Bus.

Summary

4.2.4 Letting all services to the college as one big contract can have its advantages,

however if the contractor has made errors in its pricing it can lead to

complications and early termination, as happened here. Brockenhurst College

is fortunate to have three large operators in its area and thus was able to

easily replace one with another.

4.3 Runshaw College

4.3.1 Runshaw College in Leyland, Lancashire is similar to Brockenhurst in that it

has a wide catchment area across Lancashire and the northern part of Greater

Manchester. In 2014 Runshaw College retendered the routes for an initial

period of two years with (exercised) options of extensions dependent on

performance. The contract is split over eight lots, where each lot represents a

different area.



4.3.2 Large independent operators Redline of Penwortham and Tyrer’s of Adlington,

both of which specialise in school transport, run its transport services. There

are 32 routes operating in different directions as far as twenty miles from the

college with fixed morning arrival and afternoon departure times.

4.3.3 Redline and Tyrer’s each has specific routes generally with a north/south split.

Currently Tyrer’s operates 23 of the routes with Redline providing the

remaining nine routes. There is a quality aspect to the contract which does not

focus on cheapest price and poor quality vehicles. The contract is succinct and

specific in what it requires from a potential operator, specifying a set number

of seats plus, for example:

“Transportation of students to and from Runshaw College, along 5 routes. To

arrive at approximately 8.45 am and depart Runshaw College at approximately

16.15 pm. [sic] (detailed timings and route stops will be provided in our

Invitation to Tender) Route - AM (PM reverse of inward route):”

Summary

4.3.4 The use of geographically based lots allows for some level of value for money

as the contracted operator should not be incurring excessive dead mileage to

operate the relevant services.

4.4 Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)

4.4.1 Transport for Greater Manchester covers a vast area and spends the most of

any English PTE on supported bus services. Its current contracts comprise the

following:

263 public bus services,

Split into multiple contracts covering all-day, early morning, evenings

and Sunday contracts or for a single journey;

349 ‘conventional’ school services;

Three MetroShuttle networks (Manchester, Bolton and Stockport); and

93 Yellow School Buses.

4.4.2 TfGM provides the vehicles for the MetroShuttle networks, all Yellow School

Bus routes and some of the all-day public services. These vehicles are a

mixture of hybrid and electric buses, having been purchased with support from

various government challenge funds. As such, TfGM-owned vehicles swap

between operators regularly.

4.4.3 The way in which the contracts are awarded means that on a number of routes

there are multiple operators covering different time periods. Figure D shows

service 245 where one journey in one direction only on a Saturday morning is



run by one operator, the daytime commercial service by another and evening

tendered journeys by a third.

4.4.4 There are also implications for operators in requiring drivers to learn a route

for an occasional journey. In addition, the lack of a review process so that

journeys which were subsidised twenty years ago are still subsidised while

new gaps have appeared is illustrated by the three hour gap in departures

from Stretford on Saturdays.

Figure D: Greater Manchester Service 245

Summary

4.4.5 TfGM tenders services in a variety of ways. By providing vehicles for various

services it can ensure that the desired quality is met. However the tendering

of different parts of a single service in different contracts can lead to confusion

for passengers, especially when it comes to validity of multi-journey tickets.

TfGM has never habitually used de-minimis provisions to award small

contracts to the main incumbent operator.

4.5 Shetland

4.5.1 Shetland, like CnES, has no commercial bus services. Its services have

traditionally been supplied by a multiplicity of small family-owned operators

using small depot premises on villages outside the capital, Lerwick. By and

large, each operator has stuck to its own corridor with financial support from

the Council.

4.5.2 The Council ran some operations itself with its own drivers and vehicles and in

others owned the vehicles which were loaned to the operators. The Council,



however, will reject any bid it considers to be excessive and will retender or

self-operate and did so in 2014. The farescale is specified by Shetland Islands

Council and the low level of this, ironically, is one of the main hindrances to

any commercial operation.

4.5.3 School services are, in general, tendered at the same time as the main

services and, since statutory rules apply, these involve a range of vehicle

types from full size buses to Land Rovers, saloon cars and ferries.

4.5.4 A common aspect between public and school services is the use of feeders to

main corridors. A number of hubs with waiting shelters has been built and the

links to more remote settlements run on a mix of timetabled, ‘as required’ and

DRT operation.

4.5.5 Due to the area covered, secondary school pupils from some outlying areas

board out in Lerwick during the week and this leads to additional Friday and

Sunday evening school buses. Another Shetland peculiarity is the provision of

some ‘winter months’ only school buses which are provided on safety grounds

for pupils who would otherwise be forced to walk to and from school in the

dark.

4.5.6 The bus business in Shetland is boosted by the need for transport for oil

workers. The level of this fluctuates in line with the oil supply business.

Shetland’s service bus fleet is fully accessible and modern. There is only one

facility for ‘heavy maintenance’ of buses and HGVs on Shetland and major

work has to be carried out by sending buses by ferry to Aberdeen. There is no

refurbishment facility so vehicles tend to be leased for a period of up to six or

seven years then exchanged for newer ones.

4.5.7 Only one ‘mainstream’ bus contract is not operated by low floor buses – the

‘Overland’ service 24 which includes two ferry crossings with limited clearance.

This employs a lift-equipped midicoach.

Summary

4.5.8 Shetland’s approach is very similar to that currently employed by CnES with

regard to how services are tendered. This has led to some oddities including

evening journeys being run by a different operator to the daytime and services

21 and 23 which share a common corridor being operated by two different

companies.

4.5.9 However, Shetland has a clear and defined division of responsibility for

scholars’ season tickets. These are purchased from the Environment and

Transportation Department by the Education Department as its customer.



4.6 Jersey

4.6.1 Historically, privately-owned Jersey Motor Transport (JMT) had a monopoly of

licences to run bus services on the island, supported by contracts to run school

buses on behalf of the States of Jersey. There was (and is) a small number of

coach operators on Jersey too and these also provided some school contracts.

These operators cannily linked coach day excursions and school runs by

leaving coach parties ‘at leisure’ in a particular place between 3pm and 4pm!

4.6.2 The need for change followed several years of JMT failing to make a profit and

asking the States for ever-increasing amounts of subsidy, but what this

subsidy was actually buying and what value it brought to the States was

unknown.

4.6.3 Although a small private company, JMT had generous wage levels, conditions

and pension provision and there was some history of militancy. Over half of

JMT’s staff were off-islanders with Northern England and Madeira – with which

Jersey has historic links - the main sources of staff.

4.6.4 The States decided to put the entire bus network out to tender as one

contract, accompanied by a number of school contract packages. It should be

noted that Jersey has no legislation which requires the provision of school

transport at all.

4.6.5 The States specified the timetable to be run, decided to take the revenue risk

itself and specified the provision of fully accessible vehicles on main services

conforming to the island’s maximum dimensions for vehicles. It also specified

that JMT employees should transfer on their wage rates and conditions at the

time of the transfer.

4.6.6 French transport operator Connex won the first franchise in 2002. It adopted

the mainland Europe principle of following the contract specification to the

letter. The new, accessible vehicles had 29 seats, replacing 40 and 45 seaters

in the JMT fleet. This was not the only capacity issue as JMT practice had been

to operate low frequencies but with heavy duplication. There was no incentive

for Connex to duplicate as it then incurred the cost but any additional revenue

went to the States.

4.6.7 Connex also brought in its own management who lacked the local knowledge

of the network. The final problem for Connex to handle was that a few weeks

before the handover, JMT awarded its employees a significant pay rise, which

under the terms of the contract it had no option other than to continue but

which was, of course, unbudgeted.

4.6.8 Connex had an archaic system of ticketing for school buses. Parents bought

books of tear-off vouchers from The States which were used one per journey.

The buses ran as ‘closed door’ contracts without ticket machines so these



vouchers were the only way of travelling, but, as there was no revenue risk to

Connex, policing of this was poor.

The Present Situation

4.6.9 For its second franchise, States of Jersey reduced the number of contracts to

two, the local bus services and the school buses. HCT, a not-for-profit group

based in London, won both contracts. There is a small amount of overlap

between the two. The franchisee takes most of the revenue risk. The franchise

is treated more like a partnership arrangement which results in a lot of

flexibility and significantly reduces the need for monitoring by the States.

4.6.10 The States owns a large modern depot with extensive workshop facilities on

the docks in St Helier which is leased as part of the franchise. It is rare that

any vehicle has to return to the UK for remedial work.

4.6.11 The issue of vehicle size and capacity remains, which has resulted in elderly

step-entrance vehicles with a higher number of seats being retained for school

work. The entire public bus service fleet was renewed at the start of the

contract, including the introduction of double deck buses. The downside of

this, of course, is that the entire fleet is ageing at the same rate.

4.6.12 All schoolchildren on Jersey pay a fare. Initially, the 75p child fare was only

available if purchased in multiple on a smartcard. Following parental pressure,

pupils also now have the option of paying a £1 cash fare per journey. This is

now used by a significant proportion of pupils and has grown ridership

significantly.

4.6.13 HCT suffered a significant strike in its early days over wage rates and

conditions, but the operator was largely successful in its attempt to get wages

back to a market level. The current franchise costs £4.35m including

concessionary and school fares. Neighbouring Guernsey pays HCT £4.4m for

the operation of its much smaller island network on a similar basis.

Summary

4.6.14 Jersey is a good example of both the positives and negatives of tendering all

bus services as one contract. Whilst the current incumbent HCT has been

proactive in its operation and engagement with The States, predecessor

Connex was unpopular with passengers and would not operate anything

outside its contract specification.

4.7 Summary

4.7.1 The examples above show more than anything that there is a ‘middle way’ in

contract award, between too large and too small:



In the absence of alternative large operators Brockenhurst College would

have been in serious difficulty when its contractor surrendered the contract

for all of its college transport;

Transport for Greater Manchester’s insistence on tendering journeys in

individual small blocks poses real issues of consistency and familiarity with

the service;

Jersey has seen both sides of a ‘whole island’ contract. Its first contractor

was inflexible and stuck to the letter of the contract, which was

inadequately specified. Its second contractor favours partnership working to

the benefit of both contracting authority and operator.


Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Fares and Ticketing Strategy ▪ 43

5Fares and Ticketing Strategy 5

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This section looks at fares in CnES and compares them to other similar areas.

We then look at options for changes to fares and possible ticketing

developments.

5.2 Fares Basis

5.2.1 In the past the normal practice has been to have fare increases at two-yearly

intervals, at which time individual fares would increase in line with the

Consumer Price Index (CPI). However the last fare increase saw the price of

single tickets rise by 15%, day returns by 10% and the cost of ten journey

tickets held at their existing level. Note that even after this 15% rise CnES

fares are still some way below market level (see 5.3).

5.2.2 In a bid to widen their appeal a variant of the ten journey ticket was

introduced with its validity extended from one week to two. This has had no

impact upon their popularity and the uptake of these tickets remains very low

– they make up only 0.5% of all ticket records – and the child variants are

especially little used (0.01% of all ticket records). Use of the weekly format

ticket is concentrated upon services W1 (59.2%) and W2 (32.0%) whilst use

of the two weekly format ticket is focussed upon service W5 (52.5%).

5.2.3 Taking 2010 as a base we have compared the headline CPI figure with the

Retail Prices Index (RPI)9, the CPI rates for transport and road passenger

transport10 and the increases in the multipliers applied by CnES to non-

domestic properties11. The results are contained in Table 7 and it should be

pointed out that a property revaluation resulted in the rateable value

multipliers falling in 2017, whilst other indicators continued to rise. In each

year the indicator with the greatest increase is shaded in red and that with the

lowest increase in green.

5.2.4 It is notable that in three of the six years for which complete comparisons are

available the greatest increase is in the multiplier for large properties. Fare

increases calculated at the headline CPI rate have failed to match the

increases in road passenger transport index in five of the seven years

analysed.

9 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/czbh/mm23 10 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/datasets/consumerpriceinflation 11 https://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/business/non-domestic-rates-business-rates/



Table 7: Comparison of Price Increase Indices

Year

CnES Non-domestic Rates RPI CPI

Small Property

Large Property Overall Transport

Road Passenger Transport

2018 3.0% 2.8% 4.0% 2.7%

2017 -3.7% -3.5% 0.9% 2.6% 4.3% 8.6%

2016 0.8% 3.4% 1.9% 1.0% 0.5% 3.0%

2015 1.9% 2.3% 1.9% 0.4% -2.1% 2.2%

2014 1.9% 2.3% 2.8% 1.5% 0.3% 1.5%

2013 2.7% 2.8% 3.6% 2.3% 0.9% 2.3%

2012 5.6% 5.8% 5.2% 2.6% 2.4% 4.4%

2011 4.7% 4.6% 4.9% 3.8% 7.9% 5.3%

5.3 Fares Comparisons

5.3.1 There was already a perception that the fares charged on CnES secured

services are significantly below those of comparable operations and in order to

test this theory we have compared the current cash fares to those charged in

other areas where the network is entirely secured or there has been no

deregulation. Our chosen comparators are Shetland, Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of

Man and Northern Ireland (Ulsterbus) outside the Belfast metropolitan area.

5.3.2 Ulsterbus is a division of state owned transport operator Translink and is

responsible for local bus services outside the Belfast metropolitan area, the

network comprises a mixture of interurban services, small town networks and

rural services. Under contract, Ulsterbus is also responsible for the provision of

school transport across the province outside Belfast. About 50% of income

comes from fare revenue.

5.3.3 Whereas the tip of Lewis to the foot of Harris covers a distance of around sixty

miles, Jersey and Guernsey are geographically small (the former measuring

nine miles by five miles and the latter nine miles by three miles) and as a

result operate a flat fare system, in which the cost of travel does not vary with

the distance travelled. The Isle of Man is larger (32 miles by 14 miles) and has

a conventional graduated farescale, but the longest journey that can be made

by bus (Douglas to Ramsey via Peel) is 27.2 miles.

5.3.4 Return fares are not available on Shetland, Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of

Man. The multi-journey ticketing options also differ – Shetland does not offer

such tickets, Jersey and Guernsey have weekly unlimited travel tickets and the

Isle of Man has both 12 journey tickets and unlimited travel tickets valid for

five or seven days. In all the areas studied children (ages 5 to 16) are charged

half the adult fare with other special arrangements for school travel.



5.4 Single and Return Fares

5.4.1 The adult single fare comparison is shown in Table 8 and illustrated in Figure

E. Setting aside the £1 flat fare charged on Guernsey the CnES fare scale has

the lowest charge for journeys of up to six miles in length and for journeys of

between six and 16 miles is broadly the same as Shetland. Shetland also has a

smartcard which offers a discount on single fares. From that point onwards

Shetland fares are lower than in the CnES area. The fares on Jersey and the

Isle of Man and in the rural parts of Northern Ireland are above the CnES level

– in the case of Ulsterbus substantially so, with some being more than double

the equivalent CnES fare.

Table 8: Adult Cash Single Fare Comparison

Journey Length (miles) CnES Shetland Jersey Guernsey Isle of Man Ulsterbus

1 £0.90 £1.40 £2.20 £1.00 £1.10 £1.70

2 £1.00 £1.40 £2.20 £1.00 £1.10 £2.00

3 £1.10 £1.40 £2.20 £1.00 £1.30 £2.00

4 £1.20 £1.40 £2.20 £1.00 £1.30 £2.40

5 £1.40 £1.60 £2.20 £1.00 £1.90 £2.80

6 £1.50 £1.60 £2.20 £1.00 £1.90 £3.10

8 £1.80 £1.80 £2.20 £1.00 £2.70 £3.10

10 £1.90 £1.80 £2.20 £1.00 £2.70 £3.60

12 £2.10 £2.00 £2.70 £4.00

14 £2.30 £2.30 £3.10 £4.60

16 £2.50 £2.30 £3.10 £5.40

19 £2.70 £2.30 £3.40 £6.20

22 £3.20 £2.90 £3.40 £6.20

25 £3.40 £2.90 £3.40 £6.90

28 £3.70 £3.20 £3.40 £8.20

32 £4.10 £3.20 £8.20

36 £4.50 £3.50 £9.50

40 £4.80 £3.80 £9.50

44 £5.30 £3.80 £9.50

48 £5.70 £3.80 £11.00

52 £6.20 £4.40 £11.00

56 £6.70 £4.40 £11.00

> 56 £6.80 £4.40 £12.50



Figure E: Adult Cash Single Fare Comparison

5.4.2 Return fares are offered only on the CnES network and on Ulsterbus services

and a comparison of the two is contained in Table 9 and illustrated in Figure F.

Elsewhere passengers can purchase day tickets that allow unlimited travel

(Guernsey £4.50, Isle of Man £7.00, Jersey £8.00). On Shetland single fares

for longer distance journeys are held at a low level so that the purchase of two

single fares has a similar cost to that of a return on the CnES network.

5.4.3 Ulsterbus follows the practice of many larger operators by not offering return

fares for short distance journeys. In practice the saving resulting from the

purchase of a return ticket (20p for a three mile journey on the CnES network)

is, in many cases, insufficient incentive especially where services are not

frequent and there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining a lift for the

homeward journey.

5.4.4 As would be expected from the comparison of cash adult single fares (above)

the cost of cash adult return fares on Ulsterbus services is generally more than

double the level on the CnES network.

£0.00

£2.00

£4.00

£6.00

£8.00

£10.00

£12.00

£14.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 19 22 25 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 >56.1

Fa

re

Journey Length (miles)

CnES Shetland Jersey Guernsey Isle of Man Ulsterbus



Table 9: Adult Cash Return Fare Comparison

Journey Length (miles) CnES Ulsterbus

1 £1.50 No return fare



4 £2.10 £4.30

5 £2.50 £5.00

6 £2.60 £5.60

8 £2.80 £5.60

10 £3.00 £6.50

12 £3.40 £7.20

14 £3.80 £8.30

16 £4.10 £9.70

19 £4.50 £11.00

22 £5.40 £11.00

25 £5.70 £12.50

28 £5.80 £15.00

32 £6.30 £15.00

36 £6.80 £17.00

40 £7.50 £17.00

44 £8.20 £17.00

48 £8.70 £19.00

52 £9.30 £19.00

56 £10.30 £19.00

> 56.1 £10.50 £19.00



Figure F: Adult Cash Return Fare Comparison

5.5 Multi Journey Tickets

5.5.1 Multi-journey tickets (weekly, ten or twelve journey) are available on all the

comparator networks except Shetland. However there is no consistency in the

products with Jersey and Guernsey having weekly unlimited travel tickets and

the Isle of Man having both weekly tickets and a 12 journey ticket. Thus only

the Ulsterbus prices represent a direct like-for-like comparison and once more

they are in the region of double those on CnES services. The results are shown

in Table 10 and illustrated in Figure G. Ulsterbus appears to stand out above

the other comparators but in truth its fares are reasonably close to market

levels applying across most of mainland Scotland.

5.5.2 It should be pointed out that CnES is unique in placing such a short period of

validity on ten-journey tickets. This has its origins in Scottish Bus Group

practice. In most other areas ten or twelve journey tickets are valid for up to

six months or longer. It is clear that fares on the CnES network are generally

lower than on the comparator operations and in some instances the disparity

is substantial.

£0.00

£2.00

£4.00

£6.00

£8.00

£10.00

£12.00

£14.00

£16.00

£18.00

£20.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 19 22 25 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 >56.1

Fa

re

Journey Length (Miles)

CnES Ulsterbus



Table 10: Adult Multi-journey Ticket Price Comparison

Journey Length (miles) CnES Jersey Guernsey Isle of Man Ulsterbus

1 £6.20 £18.00 £16.00 £11.00 £12.00

2 £7.00 £18.00 £16.00 £11.00 £14.50

3 £7.70 £18.00 £16.00 £12.50 £14.50

4 £8.60 £18.00 £16.00 £12.50 £17.00

5 £10.10 £18.00 £16.00 £19.00 £20.00

6 £10.80 £18.00 £16.00 £19.00 £22.00

8 £11.60 £18.00 £16.00 £25.00 £22.00

10 £12.40 £18.00 £16.00 £25.00 £25.50

12 £13.90 £25.00 £28.00

14 £15.50 £30.00 £32.00

16 £17.00 £30.00 £32.00

19 £18.50 £33.00 £38.00

22 £21.60 £33.00 £38.00

25 £23.20 £33.00 £48.00

28 £23.80 £33.00 £57.50

32 £26.00 £57.50

36 £28.80 £66.50

40 £31.00 £66.50

44 £33.90 £66.50

48 £36.10 £75.00

52 £38.90 £75.00

56 £42.50 £75.00

> 56.1 £43.30 £85.50



Figure G: Adult Multi-journey Ticket Price Comparison

5.6 Future Ticketing Development

5.6.1 There have been suggestions regarding moving towards the introduction of

smartcards on the bus network. Smartcards are, of course, already in use on

CnES services for concessionary travel, but purely as a recording medium.

Responsibility for back-office processing and reimbursement calculations rests

with Transport Scotland. Unless expansion of the use of smartcards is part of

some other body’s initiative then their further use would incur set-up and

ongoing back-office costs to CnES for questionable benefit, certainly if this

ongoing cost is at the expense of funding for service provision.

5.6.2 Our experience is that smartcards are something favoured by politicians rather

than passengers. Recent work by TAS with a Scottish operator which makes

tickets available on smartcard, mobile ticket and paper versions has shown an

overwhelming preference (around 80% of the market) for traditional ‘paper

ticket on the bus’ versions.

5.6.3 Smartcards are of most use where day tickets and period tickets are the

primary means of travel for fare payers, as would be the case in most urban

Scottish markets, where they are used in sufficient volumes to justify the

scheme costs and/or where there is a specific need to maintain an electronic

footprint of journeys made to enable apportioning of revenue between

operators. None of these situations applies to CnES.

£0.00

£10.00

£20.00

£30.00

£40.00

£50.00

£60.00

£70.00

£80.00

£90.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 19 22 25 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 >56.1

Fa

re

Journey Length (miles)

CnES Jersey Guernsey Isle of Man Ulsterbus



5.6.4 A further use of smartcards promoted at around the turn of the twenty-first

century was as an ‘e-purse’, where a card is topped-up with a set value and

each ticket is deducted from the balance until there is a need to top up again.

In our experience, this has been infrequently used when offered and has

largely been superseded by the use of contactless bank cards.

5.6.5 Not all of CnES contractors have Ticketer ETMs and a further complication then

would be finding a way for smartcards to be used on these services. This is an

issue faced in Shetland too. The solution there is for feeder services to not

collect any revenue, with the ticket purchased on the ‘main line’ part of the

journey while Dial-a-Ride and shoppers services simply do not accept

smartcards and keep manual records of concessionary trips.

5.6.6 It is possible to obtain hand-held Ticketer machines which can record

smartcard uses. These are in use, for example, by the horse tram conductors

on the Isle of Man. However, the cost of them to CnES set against likely

revenue would be disproportionate.

5.6.7 Smartcards are becoming yesterday’s advance in ticketing rapidly. Other

media are taking over which, in general, can be adopted far more quickly and

at much lower cost than running a smartcard scheme. The ‘smart’ ticketing

alternatives to a card based scheme comprise:

the use of ‘contactless’ bank cards;

the use of ‘m-ticketing’ through the storage of a ticket on a mobile phone

app and

QR codes on paper tickets.

Ticketer ETMs are easily adaptable to read QR codes on paper and mobile

tickets and to accept contactless payment.

5.6.8 The administrative costs involved in the various methods of selling tickets

include:

Cash handling charges;

‘Back office’ staff costs for handling and issuing cards;

Web hosting;

Smartcard production costs;

Bank processing costs for contactless and credit or debit card payments

including a typical interchange cost;

Fees for handling sales of m-tickets.



5.6.9 Smartcards are the most expensive medium as they attract four of the above

costs.


Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ New Contracts - Service Delivery Options ▪ 53

6New Contracts - Service Delivery Options 6

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 CnES has considered various options for the new contracts. Rather than decide

on a prescribed way forward, it intends to offer a number of different options

for tender so that it can compare process and value for money of various

options. These are described later in section 6.2.

6.2 CnES Selected Options

6.2.1 Following on from TAS’s suggested three service delivery option in the interim

report, CnES has produced nine scenarios for the new network. These are:

a) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr before 0900 leave after 1700) and


b) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr before 0900 leave after 1700) and


c) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr for 0800 and 0900 leave after 1700 and



d) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr for 0800 and 0900 leave after 1700 and



e) Maintaining the current network in its entirety;

f) Geographical larger lots including commuter runs to Stornoway, reduced



g) Geographical larger lots including commuter runs to Stornoway, reduced



h) Have the whole network as one contract, allowing the operator to provide


provided; and

i) Have the whole network as one contract, allowing the operator to provide





6.2.2 Other than in option e) the assumption is that there is no evening service

provided.

6.3 ‘School Plus’ Operations

6.3.1 One advantage of the ‘School Plus’ pattern is a potential cost saving by

increasing the number of ‘closed door’ or unregistered (see 3.2) school

contracts which are not covered by PSVAR requirements.

6.3.2 Adoption of the ‘School Plus’ option would limit the ability to participate in

after school activities to an hour or so as the post 1800 departures would no

longer run.

6.3.3 On paper this will be the lowest cost option, however there will be a number of

issues which push up the cost. There is no doubt that some drivers would be

willing to work school peaks only on a part time basis or as a ‘split shift’

arrangement.

6.3.4 However, in the worst case, in order to retain staff and/or conform to TUPE

provisions, an operator may be forced to pay a driver through from morning to

evening. This cost would be included and charged to CnES. Therefore CnES

would be paying for both a vehicle and driver to do precisely nothing during

the day, while at the same time there would be public and political outcry,

social hardship caused by loss of service and pressure on other government

agencies to provide transport to health appointments etc.

6.3.5 There also might be undue expense if the equivalent school run is of a length

that it cannot return to Stornoway by 1730, thus needing a second vehicle to

fulfil the contract.

6.4 Reduced Service Provision

6.4.1 Here, the effective cost of providing some service between school journeys is

likely to be minimal (marginal fuel cost) and the likely revenue on all but the

poorest journeys would cover the cost of operation. This makes it more

attractive both financially and politically than the ‘School Plus’ model.

6.4.2 The efficiency of this option is based upon the use of school service vehicles

throughout the day. As some would be working closed door contracts rather

than integrated services there would be an additional cost to bear in relation

to the provision of a PSVAR compliant vehicles. This may also in turn create

capacity issues on the school services as a 45 or 49-seat vehicle maybe

provided in place of a current higher capacity vehicle.

6.4.3 If this option is pursued there is likely to be comparisons made between

service provision levels for Stornoway and the other areas of Lewis and Harris.



It is recommended that there is an assessment of the provision of service

based on population levels or density and historic levels of passenger demand.

6.5 Maintaining the Current Network

6.5.1 This is likely to be the most politically acceptable option, but there is only

limited scope for savings to be made and thus it is the least affordable. Any

savings are mainly made through interworking services and timetable

amendments to gain efficiency on vehicle use.

6.5.2 It is also unlikely to address the inefficiency of the current W5 operation

which, by serving more back roads than most other mainline services, reduces

resource efficiency and the attractiveness of the journey time. Additional

vehicle savings could be made through the use of school buses for off peak

services, however this creates the same issues as stated in 6.4.2 and begins

to diverge from being simply ‘existing contracts’.

6.6 Operator Lead Network

6.6.1 On the one hand this is quite a positive proposal. The operators share the

responsibility with CnES in determining the level of service provision. CnES is

additionally able to set and maintain the budget as it is based on telling the

operators what the funding is, although to get best value for money it would

be worth giving a set of funding options.

6.6.2 However beyond one or two of the larger operators there appears to be little

appetite among the operators to get involved in determining the level of

service provided. From the consultation (see section 8) some operators would

see this as CnES just abdicating responsibility rather than a positive

partnership approach.

6.6.3 It may also result in inequitable provision if one operator is keener to boost

inter-peak services than another, or takes a different approach to marginal

costing.

6.7 One Contract

6.7.1 Very few if any of the current operators would wish to design a network for the

whole of Lewis and Harris. This would involve having to have a robust route

costing model which would lead to a sustainable business and stand up to

scrutiny by councillors.

6.7.2 A single contract would reduce the market for contracts on Lewis and Harris in

the future. From the consultation operators are likely to join to form two

consortia. Operators in the losing consortium will close down their bus

business, which will reduce competition for future contracts.



6.7.3 Thirdly we feel there would be very little if any interest from mainland

operators. Stagecoach is now more cautious regarding expansion at the

margins whilst the only other Scottish operator likely to bid would be Craig’s of

Campbeltown (West Coast Motors).

6.7.4 Fourthly, the single contract approach would almost certainly lead to the

closure of Bus na Comhairle. It has no facilities to expand to fifty or so

vehicles and if it joined an operator consortium the credibility of its ‘arm’s

length’ relationship with the Comhairle would be over-stretched.

6.7.5 It is possible that HCT group might be interesting in taking on a ‘franchise’

type arrangement as a Community Interest Company for Lewis and Harris in

the same way it has on Guernsey and Jersey. However, the fundamental

differences here are that a) there are no premises involved in the contract and

b) the unknown revenue is too great a risk.

6.7.6 Whilst some operators would more than likely be happy to be subcontracted

in, especially for feeders, most of the current operators would find themselves

out of work. This would result in very few if any local operators being around:

a) If the off-island operator has overbid and pulls out of the contract; or

b) When the contract comes up for renewal if five years’ time.

6.8 Cost Apportionment

6.8.1 Clearly the only option for the new contracts for which the current split of 48%

public bus and 52% education transport would continue to be appropriate

would be maintenance of the existing contracts as in 6.5.

6.8.2 Any fundamental change demands a recalculation of these proportions with

the likelihood that Education pays a much higher percentage, although not

necessarily a higher actual cost. This is particularly appropriate if the key

resources (vehicle plus driver) are needed to provide statutory school

transport and there are public network journeys ‘tagged on’ at marginal cost.



6.9 Future Fares Strategy

6.9.1 Attempts to promote regular bus use through holding down the price of multi-

journey tickets has had no discernible effect upon patronage. In addition the

fares increases to the standard cash single and return fares have encountered

little resistance. This leads us to believe that:

The CnES ten-journey tickets are too inflexible with their strict time limit

before expiry. There is little incentive to encourage their use by anyone

other than those who travel five days per week. Extending their period of

validity would increase their attraction to those who travel less frequently;

There is little prospect of enticing non-bus users away from their cars – the

service frequencies are too low to allow the bus to be a realistic alternative

to those who can afford to buy and use a car whilst traffic congestion and

difficulties in parking are almost unknown;

The passengers who use the buses make those journeys that are necessary

and there is little evidence of suppressed demand. Thus fares promotions

are likely to simply reduce revenue as the lower fares do not generate

additional travel, while automatically reducing concessionary

reimbursement;

Increasing single fares automatically produces a revenue bonus for CnES in

terms of concessionary fare reimbursement;



Fares on the CnES network are at a level where even significant increases

would be insufficient to prompt existing travellers to abandon the bus in

favour of private transport. In the survey, increases in fares provoked the

least adverse response; yet

as a note of caution, our experience elsewhere informs us that although

passengers’ accept increases in line with inflation, reactions to above-

inflation increases will be negative, but tempered by the fact that

passengers react to the actual size of the increase rather than proportion.

6.9.2 The current CnES adult ten journey tickets are priced in a range from 6.3 to

7.2 times the relevant adult single fare, resulting in the purchaser receiving

between 2.8 and 3.7 journeys free of charge. Elsewhere this benefit is

between 2.7 and 4.1 journeys (Ulsterbus) and between two and 2.7 journeys

(Isle of Man). Thus the basis of the CnES pricing is comparable to that in

Northern Ireland and more generous than that in the Isle of Man. Holding the

price of these tickets for a second fare increase is not justified.

6.9.3 The equivalent tickets to the ten journey tickets are sold in quantity in

Northern Ireland. However, not predominantly by those travelling every day

but by those who travel less frequently. In effect there is a bank of trips

stocked to use as and when. This should be the CnES model to trade off

against significant increases in other ticket types.

6.10 Fare Change Scenarios

6.10.1 We were asked to model the impact of five different fare increase scenarios:

across the board increases of 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%; and

single fares increased by 20%, returns by 15% and 10 journey tickets by

10%.

6.10.2 The ETM data supplied in a consolidated format allows us to identify the total

passengers by ticket type and service and the total associated revenue, but

we cannot undertake a conventional fare change modelling as this requires us

to be able to identify the number of sales made at each fare value for each

ticket type. Consequently we assumed that there is little resistance to low fare

increases but that the scale of resistance would rise as the size of the fare

increase grows. In view of past experiences (see 6.9.1) this does not appear

to be an unrealistic position.

6.10.3 We have therefore assumed that rather than applying the industry standard

fare elasticity figure of -0.4% across the range that:

the 5% fare increase will encounter -0.1% elasticity,

the 10% -0.2%,



the 15% -0.3% and

the 20% increase -0.4%.

6.10.4 While these are lower than ‘normal’ elasticities, the normal values are

calculated very much based on urban services and on areas where fares are at

or above market rate. CnES is rural and has fares much lower than the norm.

6.10.5 It is also clear from the survey (see section 9) that passengers are less

resistant to fares increases than reductions in service. On this basis we

estimate that the likely level of change to revenue is as shown below in Table

11 and in Table 12 it is shown by service.

Table 11: Predicted Revenue Changes for Different Scenarios

Increase

Additional

On-Bus

Additional

Concessionary Total Yield

5% £14,818 £9,465 £24,284

10% £29,242 £18,931 £48,172

15% £43,290 £28,396 £71,687

20% £56,964 £37,862 £94,826

Variable £48,980 £37,862 £86,842

Table 12: Total Predicted Additional Revenue by Service

Service Annual Revenue Increase from Fare Increase of:

5% 10% 15% 20% Variable

W1 £4,435 £8,791 £13,069 £17,269 £14,758

W2 £4,077 £8,092 £12,045 £15,935 £14,429

W3 £676 £1,338 £1,986 £2,620 £2,072

W4 £187 £373 £558 £743 £726

W5 £8,296 £16,452 £24,469 £32,346 £30,596

W7 £402 £802 £1,200 £1,596 £1,595

W8 £1,014 £2,023 £3,026 £4,024 £3,897

W9 £721 £1,431 £2,128 £2,813 £2,417

W10 £3,608 £7,164 £10,667 £14,118 £13,230

W12 £33 £66 £99 £132 £130

W13 £296 £590 £882 £1,172 £1,137

W14 £557 £1,088 £1,611 £2,127 £1,924

Total £24,284 £48,172 £71,687 £94,826 £86,842

6.10.6 The maximum revenue yield is £95k per annum from a 20% increase,

assuming no change in services. This represents an increase in revenue of



18.2% but it is worth considering that this represents only around 4% of

operating costs, as revenue covers such a low proportion of operating cost.

6.10.7 The resistance is comparatively low because increases to single fares

automatically carry through to concessionary reimbursement, which forms a

significant part of the revenue increase. This will occur for any fare increase

concentrated on changes to single fares. Indeed we have modelled the effects

of a fare increase which simply increases single fares by 20%, leaving return

tickets unchanged, which is predicted to increase revenue by £75k per annum.

6.10.8 Within this, it is also worth pointing out that around 84% of the increased

revenue comes from just the four main services (W1, W2, W5 and W10). The

revenue impacts of reductions to these services are likely to be far greater

than the resistance to fare increases.

6.11 Fares Alternatives

6.11.1 The options above all maintain the current very finely graded, mostly mileage-

based farescale. It would be possible to introduce a much coarser, simpler

farescale, say in increments of fifty pence. As we do not have access to

analysis of ticket sales by fare value we cannot assess any benefits or the

effect of so doing, but it would be relatively easy to do within the limits of a

20% increase.

6.11.2 There is also no reason for the increase in fares to a blanket imposition, the

increase could be held off for fares which are already at high values.


Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Marketing and Publicity ▪ 61

7Marketing and Publicity 7

7.1 Current Situation

7.1.1 The current marketing of the CnES bus network is limited – a series of paper

timetable leaflets is produced containing the services operated grouped by

geographical area and showing the fares charged.

7.1.2 these timetables contain weekday, Saturday, schoolday and non-schoolday

journeys in the same table and typically have a myriad of codes (no fewer

than 15 on the W2) indicating that a particular journey does or may do on

request something in addition to the information contained in the table. The

extensions and diversions on request are a particular problem with:

no standard notice period across the network for requesting that they

operate; and

only the occasional acknowledgement that, if a particular diversion is

requested then the times that the bus arrives at subsequent calling points

will be later than those contained in the timetable.

7.1.3 It may be that such publicity is adequate for long term residents and

committed bus service users but it is unlikely to be understood by occasional

travellers or visitors. Indeed the ‘transport professionals’ at TAS had some

difficulty with interpretation. We assume that many people just simply know

the time of their bus and any changes are communicated by word of mouth.

7.2 Potential Improvement – Day Rover Ticket

7.2.1 Although not part of the CnES prescribed range of tickets MacLennan Coaches

offers a variety of rover tickets with the adult versions priced at £5.50, £6.00,

£6.50 and £8.00. These prices are relatively high set against single fare levels.

7.2.2 Their promotion is poor being restricted to the phrase “Discount Rover Ticket

around Westside of Lewis, visiting Callanish Stones, Carloway Broch and Arnol

Blackhouse” on the front page of the company’s website. We have calculated

the pricing structure from the ETM data supplied and information from CnES.

7.2.3 Their major use is on service W2, which serves several of the main tourist

destinations. Just under 400 were sold in the period between April 2017 and

March 2018. Full details are shown in Table 13.

7.2.4 Given that these tickets are aimed at the visitor market it is not surprising that

the vast majority (91%) is sold between April and September. What is more

remarkable, given the negligible promotion, is the number sold. The resulting

revenue represents a significant boost to that received from residents’ travel

and in the July to September period, income from rover tickets (£1,470)



exceeded that from both adult ten journey tickets (£1,434) and child single

tickets (£1,348).

Table 13: MacLennan Coaches Service W2 Rover Ticket Sales

Ticket Type

April to

June 2017

July to

September 2017

October to

December 2017

January to

March 2018 Total

Adult Rover 1

Sales 6 16 3 25

Revenue £33.00 £88.00 £16.50 £137.50

Adult Rover 2

Sales 76 147 22 3 248

Revenue £456.00 £882.00 £132.00 £18.00 £1,488.00

Adult Rover 3

Sales 11 21 3 35

Revenue £71.50 £136.50 £19.50 £227.50

Adult Rover

All Day

Sales 29 45 3 1 78

Revenue £232.00 £360.00 £24.00 £8.00 £624.00

Child Rover 2

Sales 1 1 2

Revenue £3.00 £3.00 £6.00

Total

Sales 123 230 31 4 388

Revenue £795.50 £1,469.50 £192.00 £26.00 £2,483.00

7.2.5 It is apparent that a market exists for a rover type ticket and whilst the W2

service benefits from a concentration of attractions others could be marketed

in a similar fashion. For example the W10 has the Isle of Harris distillery at

Tarbert, St Clement’s Church at Rodel and the spectacular beach at

Luskentyre and its summer patronage (July to September) is roughly double

that in the January to March period, which indicates significant use by visitors.

7.2.6 There is no reason at all that such a ticket should offer any discount compared

to single fares. It could easily be a premium product aimed at visitors who

value a flexible ticket at a simple price without being limited to a particular

journey. The Isle of Wight12, Torquay and Cornwall are other areas where a

relatively expensive day ticket is aimed at the visitor market.

7.2.7 In order to be successful such an initiative should be accompanied by the

production of special leaflets which, in addition to the details of the attractions

served, would also contain suggested itineraries giving clear and simple

directions as to:

which bus services and journeys should be used;

the requirement to pre-book travel to and from any destination that is

served on demand;

the appropriate boarding points and

12 The Isle of Wight’s Day ticket costs £10 while a 7-day version is £24.



the times of the journeys.

7.2.8 Of course, this would be aided by simplification of the timetables themselves

wherever possible.

7.3 Website Improvements

7.3.1 The CnES website has, contained within the section captioned ‘Roads, Travel

and Parking’, a sub-section relating to Public Transport including bus

timetables. In fact apart from a general overview of the bus services operated

throughout the Western Isles and a summary of the Scottish Concessionary

Travel Scheme it contains nothing but web versions of the paper timetable

leaflets, replicating their complexity and myriad explanatory notes.

7.3.2 This information is reproduced in electronic format on the CnES website, which

does mention that the most popular tourist sites are to be found on the routes

of services W2 and W10 (although failing to identify what or where they are).

It also cautions intending passengers to “read the timetables carefully, as

certain journeys do not operate every day and parts of some routes run only

on request”. This warning is well warranted.

7.3.3 It is understandable that, in order to contain their size, the entirety of a

service is contained in one table in the timetable leaflets. No such restriction

applies to the web-based versions and much greater clarity could be achieved

through separating Monday to Friday and Saturday operations and in some



cases dividing the Monday to Friday timetable into schoolday and non-

schoolday versions.

7.3.4 There is no attempt to market the CnES bus network to the occasional user or

the visitor. Whilst it is likely that a resident unfamiliar with the precise details

of their local bus service would be able to seek clarification from a relative,

friend or neighbour visitors have no such opportunity.

7.3.5 In January 2017 it was reported that 2016 had seen a 22% increase in

Western Isles tourist numbers13. A May 2015 CnES report14 revealed that in

2013 a total of 113,000 British resident tourists visited the Outer Hebrides,

spending a total of £43 million during the course of their stay. Many of these

will have had their own transport but there is substantial potential to attract

additional bus travel from within their numbers.

7.3.6 It would be beneficial if the website contained details of possible days out by

bus. This would require a specific itinerary to be devised in order to present a

simple proposition to people whose local knowledge is likely to be sketchy at

best. Implementation of a rover ticket as outlined above would also assist in

such a promotion.

7.3.7 Figure H, Figure I, Figure J and Figure K show three different ways of

producing timetables. These are all online PDF versions of paper timetable

booklets. All split out Monday to Friday services from Saturday services which

immediately makes the timetable less cluttered. The latter three additionally

use colour coding alongside letter codes to separate variation services varying

from those operating every day.

7.3.8 Care needs to be taken with colour coding, which is not favoured by some

organisations which represent those with visual impairment. It is clear to see

how the fine lines and colours in Figure J cause problems of legibility. The use

of colours by West Norfolk CT (Figure I) is clearer but could easily obscure the

information underneath. For timetables like those operating in CnES simple

clarity in black and white (as in Figure H) is probably recommended.

13 https://www.stornowaygazette.co.uk/news/preparing-the-way-to-attract-more-and-more-visitors-to-the-islands-1-434943 14 https://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/media/5525/ohfactcards2015.pdf



Figure H: Faresaver Service 35

Figure I: West Norfolk Community Transport Services 60, 61 & 65



Figure J: Salisbury Reds Service X7

Figure K: Xplore Dundee Service 23


Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Operator Consultations ▪ 67

8Operator Consultations 8

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 Operator consultation took place by invitation at the Bridge Centre, Stornoway

between the 11th and 13th December. Fifteen operators were consulted in total,

including Bus na Comhairle. The interviews were structured but allowed free-

form comment.

8.2 Current and Future

8.2.1 There was a mix of responses as to why operators had bid for the contracts

that they currently hold. Some of the key themes were:

Only a handful of the small operators had a ‘this is the only contract I ever

operate’ approach;

Fewer operators than expected felt limited by geographical factors; and

Many of the smaller operators as well as the big ones had bid for more

contracts than they necessarily wanted to operate, in order to provide a

safety net.

This gave the overall impression that no-one felt safe to overbid for a contract.

8.3 Larger Lots

8.3.1 As expected there was a mixed reaction to the idea of contracting out in larger

lots. All of the small operators felt that they would realistically be unable for

bid for any lot that was larger than a few vehicles worth of work. Whilst most

were willing to be a subcontractor or enter into a joint bid with other

operators, the phase ‘the right operator’ was constantly used. This perhaps

portrays the difficult relationship between some operators.

8.3.2 Most of the larger operators were willing to bid for larger lots and subcontract

out ‘if the price was right’. However there was the acknowledgement that

given a need to save money and take a management fee for the

subcontracting work it might be hard to find anyone willing to do it. The main

message from all operators appeared to be that smaller lots gave better value

for money as it allowed all operators to bid on their own account.

8.4 Revised Service Provision

8.4.1 Only a couple of operators said that they would be unwilling to bid for a school

only network. The general consensus was that as the bus and driver had to be



paid for the more hours work undertaken the better. This led to a more

positive reaction to the school focused network although a number of the

feeder operators pointed out that their services were already run that way,

although, of course, there needs to be something to feed into.

8.4.2 Most of the suggestions about the operators’ own service(s) revolved around

removing little used journeys or converting afternoon ‘integrated’ services into

closed door school journeys. It was suggested by a number of operators that

the evening provision should be standardised with the current Monday –

Thursday service level used all week. A few operators also reported that some

pre-bookable journeys are never used whilst another pointed out that the

timetable for these journeys isn’t easy to understand.

8.5 Suggested Changes to Current Services

8.5.1 The majority of suggestions for improvement were about other operators’

services. The main themes were:

Public holiday services should be on a Saturday rather than weekday

timetable;

Service W2 could be operated with one fewer vehicle as the service level

was designed to serve schools which have now closed;

Service W5 is very inefficient due to the way that it operates, serving all the

side roads – journey times deter prospective passengers ;

One operator called for an equal service provision for all districts; and

Service W10 could be operated with smaller vehicles outside the summer

season.

8.6 Drivers

8.6.1 Whilst all operators felt they had no current issue in retaining drivers, the

views on the difficulties of recruiting varied. Some operators appeared to have

a more proactive approach than others which explains some of the difference

in views. Other points raised were:

Part-time drivers are the hardest to recruit, especially since the introduction

of the Driver CPC has led to a lot of older drivers opting to retire,

Some operators solve the problem of #free’ time by employing the driver

on other work, not always within the bus business, between school runs;

The more remote the operation the harder it is to find potential drivers; and



Getting a driver through their training and test is expensive – some

operators are considering the use of 8 seater vehicles instead of minibuses

to get around this cost.

8.7 Fares

8.7.1 The overall consensus appeared to be that the fares currently charged are

reasonable. Most operators felt that there was room for an increase, especially

in single fares which are used mainly by irregular passengers. However any

increase should be done by a small annual uplift (generally 5 to 10 per cent).

8.8 Vehicles

8.8.1 The suggestion of replacing coaches with low-floor vehicles generated negative

reactions from all operators who currently use coaches for local bus work.

Whilst most acknowledge that the current services that low floor vehicles are

used on are suitable, the use of them on longer distances services was

dismissed. There were three key reasons for this:

a) The terrain was seen as unsuitable, for example the approximately eight

miles of open moorland between Newmarket and Barvas where high winds

can affect the doors and windows of a low-floor vehicle;

b) The need to carry large amounts of shopping alongside luggage and even

bikes in the summer would overload a low-floor vehicle; and

c) The seating capacity available, especially if seeking to be more efficient by

using school vehicles for local bus work outside of school times.

8.8.2 Capacity was raised as a concern for having to use PSVAR compliant coaches

on some of the heaviest-used school runs – it was felt that caution needs to be

used when assessing which runs would be suitable for use with a PSVAR

vehicle and which would not be suitable on capacity grounds and the

implications of this for public service provision.

8.8.3 There was some concern over the timescale needed to find any suitable PSVAR

coaches in addition to the current fleet, low mileage secondhand examples are

hard to find and expensive whilst manufacturers are quoting delivery times of

up to six months for new-builds.

8.8.4 Fuel savings were often dismissed as irrelevant when additional costs

associated with low-floor vehicles (such as the perceived need for more

maintenance) were taken into account.

8.8.5 It was generally felt that the maximum vehicle age specification was a ‘good

thing’ as it helped keep up standards. There was, however, a concern among



many of the minibus operators that ten year old minibuses that have passed

the DVSA test can be more reliable than brand new vehicles.

8.8.6 There was little enthusiasm for CCTV on vehicles. Minibus operators felt that

there was no need for it in such a small vehicle whilst larger bus operators

tended to see it as just another expense.

8.9 Subsidy Adjuster

8.9.1 Only one operator was in favour of removing the subsidy adjuster and

returning to a simple CPI based increase. All other operators felt that CnES

was saving money thanks to the adjuster as it prevents front loading of tender

prices and over-cautious pricing. Given that insurance premiums and the

minimum wage are both increasing as much as or even more than the rate at

which fuel is increasing then there was a reluctance for the adjuster just to

focus on fuel.

8.10 Passenger Priorities

8.10.1 The vast majority of operators seemed to feel that you could not prioritise one

type of passenger over another. This was an acknowledgement of the fact that

whilst their services may be dominated by one type of passenger, other

services have a different passenger profile. There was a marked difference

between primary integrated services and feeders, with the latter generally

having low commuter traffic and high numbers of concessionary passholders

who were accessing local shops and health facilities.

8.10.2 Only two operators, one on Harris and one on Lewis, saw ferry connections as

an important part of their service. Harris operators were the most vocal

regarding tourists with a feeling that there could be a market in the summer

for a tourist rover ticket.

8.11 Future Ticketing

8.11.1 It was discovered in the course of preparing for this consultation that

Transport Scotland were no-longer seeking to fund e-Purse rollout. There was

little objection to it in principle, however.

8.11.2 Contactless payment and QR Codes generated little interest among the

operators, the two key questions appeared to be:

a) How much demand would there be? and

b) Who would pay for it?

The latter question tended to have the implication that if it were a prescribed

part of the contract then the cost would be included in the bid.



8.12 Other Issues

8.12.1 There were three key themes that came out of the open discussion following

the questions, these were:

The lack of notice period in the past between contract award and start date

– this has led to short notice registrations with the Traffic Commissioner

and can create issues if additional vehicles need to be sourced for the

contract;

The relationship between Bus na Comhairle and those who are devising,

letting and tendering the contracts is seen as too close for some operators;

and

Regular updates on the progress of the preparation of the tenders needs to

be provided by CnES so that operators know what to expect and when.


Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 ▪ 73

9Bus Passenger Survey December 2018 9

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 As part of the review of secured bus services for CnES a bus passenger survey

was designed by TAS and approved and undertaken by CnES in December

2018. The survey was available in paper format and online through a weblink

to Survey Monkey. Paper forms were available at Stornoway Bus Station and

Town Hall, libraries in Stornoway and Tarbert and also the Comhairle’s offices

in Stornoway and Tarbert. The time period for completion was restricted to 3

December to 15 December inclusive.

9.2 Survey Design and Data Issues

9.2.1 The original intention was that the survey would be carried out on-bus, either

using paper forms handed to passengers or face-to-face interviews using

electronic handheld devices. As such it was worded appropriately with the

expectation that the answers would relate to the specific trip being undertaken

by the respondent. A copy of the survey form is included as an Appendix.

9.2.2 In the event CnES had no available staff to carry out surveys which led to the

surveys being completed off-bus. With hindsight this should have stimulated a

rewording of some of the questions. Questions which would normally be

answered more specifically were answered more generally – for example with

multiple answers to ‘What time do you usually get on the bus?’ reflecting a

range of possible journeys. This has made the analysis and interpretation of

the survey results somewhat different.

9.2.3 As a principle we have accepted multiple answers where given and where they

are sensible (for example we would reject ‘yes’ and ‘no’ combinations).

9.2.4 Note also that results from surveys where the respondent has to seek out the

form do have a tendency to provide skewed results as effectively the surveyor

(CnES in general) has no control over sampling. Online surveys in particular

have a much younger profile and are much more likely to be completed by

those in work.

9.2.5 The distribution of the survey forms has also introduced some skew into the

results in that respondents had to be travelling into either Stornoway or

Tarbert in order to obtain a form. Thus, for example, the W9 reported a much

lower degree of health-related trips than other services because the local

health centre is in Lochs and passengers making local trips had no opportunity

to obtain a form.



9.3 Responses

9.3.1 In total we received 470 responses, 245 through Survey Monkey and 225

returned paper forms. Response rates to individual questions were high, as

shown below in Figure L. The lowest response rates were for Question 6 and

the third part of Question 8, both of which relate to fares. It is clear that those

who do not pay fares have skipped these questions on occasion.

Figure L: Response Rates to Questions

9.4 Survey Monkey Completion

9.4.1 In Figure M below we summarise the completion time of responses submitted

through Survey Monkey. 1900 to 2000 is the peak time for survey completion

which mirrors our findings from other electronic surveys.



Figure M: Completion Time of Survey Monkey Responses

9.5 Q1a What Service Do You Use the Most

9.5.1 459 people responded to this question. Some 416 of these only indicated a

single service while 43 gave multiple answers. The totals by service are shown

in Figure N. Note that since we initially did not aim to carry out surveys on the

Stornoway local service (W7) it was not included in the list here.

9.5.2 Services W1 and W2 were used by most respondents, with both parts of

service W5 almost as favoured. These, along with service W10, featured highly

in multiple answers too.



Figure N: What Service Do You Use the Most?

9.6 Q1b Which Stop Nearest Your Home do you Board at?

9.6.1 This question got one of the lowest response rates, with only 416 responses.

After editing out imprecise responses such as ‘our house’, ‘bus shelter’ and

others this reduced to 364 valid responses.

9.6.2 We then grouped the responses by village or settlement to produce a list of 93

separate places from which we received responses. The places from which the

highest numbers of respondents came were Borve, Leurbost and Tolsta. The

results are presented in map form in Figure O to Figure S.



Figure O: Survey Respondents in Harris



Figure P: Survey Respondents in Lochs



Figure Q: Survey Respondents in Ness



Figure R: Survey Respondents around Stornoway



Figure S: Survey Respondents in the West



9.7 Q1c: Which Stop do you usually Travel to?

9.7.1 There were 462 responses to this question, notably more than the number of

responses to the ‘origin’ question above. As noted below in Figure T the

primary destination is Stornoway Bus Station, accounting for 78% of

respondents.

9.7.2 There were 79 who specified ‘other’. The majority of these specified other

points in Stornoway with the only other place of significance being Tarbert

with fourteen responses.

Figure T: Which Stop do you usually Travel to?

9.8 Q1d: What Time do you usually Get on the Bus?

9.8.1 This question produced the highest number of multiple responses of any

question. Of 459 respondents to this question, only 246 (54%) indicated a

single time period.

9.8.2 Clearly respondents indicated the range of times that they used buses for a

variety of journeys. In addition, it was obvious that respondents mainly took

this to mean at what time they usually got on a bus to travel into Stornoway

as the results show a decidedly ‘morning’ bias. Figure U below shows the

boarding times as reported, including multiple entries. If this pattern was



accurate then it would reflect 51% of trips being made between 0900 and

1200.

9.8.3 In Figure V we look at the results proportionately by main service using

aggregated time bands. W9 in particular has a morning bias while the

proportions on W2 and W5 after 1800 appear unduly high (but we have no

ETM data by time to disprove this).

9.8.4 Overall, we would rather rely on ETM data to produce loading figures by time

rather than rely on these data.

Figure U: What Time do you Usually Get on the Bus?



Figure V: What Time do you Usually Get on the Bus? By Service

9.9 Q2a: What is the Main Reason for your Journey?

9.9.1 This question received the highest response rate at 99% (463 responses). This

question also received many multiple responses with 41% of respondents

indicating more than one reason. The results, counting all multiple responses,

are shown in Figure W. It is notable that while shopping, as expected, was the

primary trip purpose (52% of respondents) it was only four percentage points

above the proportion of those travelling for work (48%).

9.9.2 It is also notable that the proportion travelling for ‘health/welfare’ is

remarkably high at 27% of respondents. Typically we would expect this to be

below ten per cent. It is clear, therefore, that the bus network is fairly integral

to enabling health services in Lewis and Harris.

9.9.3 Figure X repeats this chart for farepayers only. Note that here the main trip

purpose by some margin is employment and shopping has much lower

prominence.

9.9.4 Employment-related trips are not equally spread across the services but are

focussed mainly on services W1, W2 and both sections of W5. The service with

the highest proportion of respondents travelling for employment is W9 and the

lowest services W13 and W14 (see Figure Y). Note the proportion of health-

related trips is high across all services with the exception of service W9.



Figure W: What is the Main Reason for your Journey?

Figure X: What is the Main Reason for your Journey? – Farepayers



Figure Y: What is the Main Reason for your Journey? – by Service

9.10 Q2b: If you are travelling for Work, which Sector do

you Work in?

9.10.1 This question was clearly aimed only at those who indicated that they used the

bus for work purposes of whom there were 220 (see Figure W). Yet there were

277 responses to this question. As a consequence, we limited analysis to only

those 220 respondents who answered ‘Employment’ to Q2a.

9.10.2 A significant number of respondents here answered ‘Prefer not to Say’. We are

unsure whether this is genuine or whether we omitted some key employment

sector.

9.10.3 Retail, health and the local authority sectors are predominant. We suspect the

latter is so due to the availability of the survey forms in the Comhairle’s

offices. We also conjecture that in summer, rather than December, the

numbers in the hospitality sector would be rather higher.



Figure Z: If you are travelling for Work, which Sector do you Work in?

9.11 Q2c: What Time do you Normally Start Work?

9.11.1 As with Q2b, this question was also clearly aimed only at those who indicated

that they used the bus for work purposes but there were, in fact, 274

responses to this question. As a consequence, we again limited analysis to

only those 220 respondents who answered ‘Employment’ to Q2a. Most

respondents selected a single timeband but a significant number reported

more than one normal start time.

9.11.2 The results are shown in Figure AA below. It is not surprising that most

workers (61%) normally start work between 0800 and 0900, although the

significant number who start work after 1200 is notable.



Figure AA: What Time do you Normally Start Work?

9.12 Q2d: What Time do you Normally Finish Work?

9.12.1 Again as with Q2b, this question was aimed only at those who indicated that

they used the bus for work. There were, in fact, 275 responses to this

question. As a consequence, we again limited analysis to only those 220

respondents who answered ‘Employment’ to Q2a. Many respondents (171 of

220) selected a single timeband but a significant number reported more than

one normal finish time. A multiple choice here was more common than for

start time.

9.12.2 The results are shown in Figure AA below. There is a much greater variation in

finishing times than starting times and more respondents (188) quote finishing

times outside the traditional 1700-1800 peak than within it (101). The largest

number is those quoting a finishing time after 1800. Indeed we might say this

is a suspiciously large number. The after 1800 finishers, as with employment

trips in general, are concentrated on services W1, W2 and W5 (both parts).



Figure BB: What Time do you Normally Finish Work?

9.13 Q3: How often do you Travel on this Service?

9.13.1 454 respondents answered this question. There were some multiple answers

to this question too. In this case we took the highest frequency of travel as the

correct answer. Note also that the wording of this question is more relevant to

an on-bus survey. We took the answer to relate to the main service specified

as the answer to Q1a.

9.13.2 Results are in Figure CC below. The vast majority of respondents (83%) are

regular users travelling at least weekly. This is not unexpected as we would

expect regular users to be more likely to go to the effort of completing an off-

bus questionnaire.

9.13.3 As shown in Figure DD, frequent users are concentrated on services W1, W2

and both parts of W5. This correlates with the high number of employment

trips on these services. However, even on the low-frequency services there

are more regular travellers than infrequent users.



Figure CC: How often do you Travel on this Service?

Figure DD: How often do you Travel on this Service? – By Service



9.14 Q4: Do you Travel at the same Time Each Day on this Service?

9.14.1 Some 440 people answered this question. On the face of it the wording of the

question is aimed only at those who travel daily in the first place, of whom

there were only 211.

9.14.2 Figure EE shows the breakdown of all responses (left) and only those travelling

‘daily’ on the right. In each case the proportions are broadly equal, as are the

proportions on individual services.

9.14.3 In Figure FF we look at the answers to this question by journey purpose,

looking only at those giving a single answer for journey purpose. This chart is

notable because of the different balance of ‘no’s including suggesting that forty

per cent of those travelling for work vary their times. Overall, however, the

proportions reflect those in Figure EE so there is an implication that the overall

result is influenced by the high proportion of those travelling to work at

regular times.

Figure EE: Do you Travel at the same Time Each Day on this Service?

‘Daily’

Travellers

All

Respondents



Figure FF: Do you Travel at the same Time Each Day on this Service? –

By Journey Purpose

9.15 Q5: What Kind of Ticket do you Use?

9.15.1 Some 462 respondents answered this question. Note that the wording of the

question invited multiple answers but in the event there were only eighteen of

these. The results are shown below in Figure GG. Some 41% of respondents

used a concessionary pass, while the predominant ticket type amongst

farepayers was the Return.

9.15.2 Given that we suspect a bias to regular users, the number of respondents

using the 10-journey ticket is small. Note also that the youth market is poorly

represented with only 24 responses, but this age group is much less likely to

complete surveys off-bus unless specifically targeted.

9.15.3 In Figure HH we look at ticket types by journey purpose.

A significant minority of those travelling to work has a concessionary pass;

Over half of all shopping and health trips are made by concession-holders;

10-journey tickets are not used exclusively for work trips; and

The highest proportion of single fares is used for work trips.



Figure GG: What Kind of Ticket do you Use?

Figure HH: What Kind of Ticket do you Use? – By Trip Purpose



9.16 Q6: Do you Consider Current Fares Offer Value for Money?

9.16.1 Only 390 respondents answered this question, giving one of the lowest

response rates at 83%. However, it must be borne in mind that concessionary

passholders ought to have no interest in fare levels at all although significant

numbers did complete this question.

9.16.2 Figure II below shows the results both globally and with concessionary

passengers excluded. The close correlation is perhaps surprising. But even

more importantly, there can be few areas of the UK where the proportion of

farepayers saying ‘Yes’, fares do offer value for money, will be as high as

85%. By comparison, the Transport Focus Bus Passenger Survey for 201715,

looking at Scottish operators, found First Glasgow at 71% but most others in

the low sixties.

9.16.3 Figure JJ looks at the results by ticket type. This shows only a slight variation

by ticket type with holders of ten-journey tickets rating their value more

highly and probably reflecting their discount when compared to single fares.

Figure II: Do you Consider Current Fares Offer Value for Money?

15 http://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/14203607/BPS-Summary-Report-Report-Mar-2018.pdf

All

Respondents Excluding

Concessions

http://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/14203607/BPS-Summary-Report-Report-Mar-2018.pdf

http://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/14203607/BPS-Summary-Report-Report-Mar-2018.pdf



Figure JJ: Do you Consider Current Fares Offer Value for Money? – By

Ticket Type

9.17 Q7: Do you Use Any Other Bus Services?

9.17.1 446 respondents answered this question. The validity of this question is

reduced because a) the respondent was not actually using a bus service at the

time and b) 43 respondents had already specified more than one services in

Q1a (see 9.5 above).

9.17.2 The overall proportion (Figure KK) shows some 40% of respondents who use

more than one service. Of course, this can include those who make a journey

which can be made on more than one service, such as Barvas to Stornoway

which could be either W1 or W2.

9.17.3 Figure LL breaks the results down by service. There is some interesting

variation here with the majority of respondents on service W10 using other

services, while some 70% of users of the northern section of W5 are exclusive

to that service.



Figure KK: Do You Use Any Other Bus Services?

Figure LL: Do You Use Any Other Bus Services? – By Service

9.18 Q8-1: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service Ran at Different Times?

9.18.1 This first part of Q8 was answered by 440 respondents. A change of time

would be resisted to a surprisingly high degree, with 44% saying they would

travel less if their bus ran at different times. The main services W1, W2 and



W5 are more resistant to change than other services (see Figure NN) largely

due to their high proportion of employment trips, while those using service

W14 are most flexible.

9.18.2 Of journey purposes in Figure OO, ‘External Transport Links’ is most resistant

to change (but based on a small sample) which is naturally related to fixed

ferry and air timings. Shopping journeys are most flexible. 65% of shoppers

would travel the same if times were changed.

9.18.3 Unfortunately, the multiple answers regarding times which were obtained from

Questions 1d, 2c and 2d make cross-tabulation of this question against start

or finish times very difficult.

Figure MM: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less

if the Service Ran at Different Times?



Figure NN: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less

if the Service Ran at Different Times? – By Service

Figure OO: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less

if the Service Ran at Different Times? – By Trip Purpose



9.19 Q8-2: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service Ran at a Reduced

Frequency?

9.19.1 This second part of Q8 was answered by 404 respondents. Passengers appear

to be most resistant to reduced frequency with no fewer than 70% of

respondents saying that they would reduce their frequency of travel if service

frequencies were reduced.

9.19.2 The figures by service vary greatly (Figure QQ). Of the three main services,

passengers on services W1, W2 and W5 to Point are very resistant to reduced

frequencies, those on the Back and Tolsta section of W5 have the lowest level

of resistance. Passengers on service W14, who were least resistant to changes

to times, are most resistant to frequency reduction.

9.19.3 The findings by journey purpose (see Figure RR) vary surprisingly little from

the average.

Figure PP: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if

the Service Ran at a Reduced Frequency?



Figure QQ: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less

if the Service Ran at a Reduced Frequency? – By Service

Figure RR: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if

the Service Ran at a Reduced Frequency? – By Journey Purpose



9.20 Q8-3: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if the Service had Increased Fares?

9.20.1 This third part of Q8 was answered by 373 respondents. This is somewhat less

than the other parts of Q8 but it must be considered that the question is of no

relevance to those (e.g. concessionary passholders) who pay no fare.

However, many non-farepayers did answer the question. To check validity of

the answers, Figure SS shows the summarised answers for all responses (left)

and excluding those who do not pay fares (right).

9.20.2 This is the category of least resistance. 68% of respondents would travel the

same as now if fares were increased. This falls only slightly to 64% when non-

farepayers are excluded.

9.20.3 In Figure TT the responses by service show little variation from the average

except service W1 which is significantly more resistant to fares increases than

others.

9.20.4 Figure UU looks at resistance to fares increases by journey purpose. There are

some notable variations here, with ‘Employment’ and ‘Social/Recreation’

purposes showing significantly lower resistance to fare increases. The latter is

perhaps more surprising than the former.

9.20.5 The journey purpose most resistant to fare increases is ‘Health/Welfare’. This

appears counter-intuitive in that if someone has a medical appointment the

assumption might be that the journey was a necessity. However, this result is

based on a comparatively small number of responses.

9.20.6 In Figure VV we can see that the ticket type most resistant to fares rises is the

return, but even here 60% of users say they would travel the same if fares

rose, about 10% fewer than singles or 10-journey tickets.

Figure SS: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if

the Service had Increased Fares?

All

Respondents

Excluding

Concessions



Figure TT: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if

the Service had Increased Fares? – By Service

Figure UU: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less

if the Service had Increased Fares? – By Journey Purpose



Figure VV: Would you use Your Regular Bus Service the Same or Less if

the Service had Increased Fares? – By Ticket Type

9.21 Conclusions

9.21.1 Two aspects have unfortunately reduced the reliability and usefulness of the

survey responses. Firstly the mode of issuing and collecting the surveys

changed so that the results are less specific to a given journey than we initially

expected and the number of multiple responses to questions made pinning

down those responses difficult, particularly in relation to time of travel.

9.21.2 The limited availability of forms (effectively in Stornoway and Tarbert only) did

introduce some geographic bias. But, by reference to the maps of respondents

(see Figure O to Figure S) we felt this was limited. Survey Monkey also tends

to distort the age and economic status of sample of respondents and is much

more likely to be completed by younger, working people. The fact that the

survey was carried out in early December will also have had an influence.

Notwithstanding this, 470 responses represents a decent sample size and

offers the opportunity for some valid analysis.



9.21.3 There are some clear findings which should be considered in producing the

revised network:

a) Shopping was the dominant trip purpose (239 out of 470 respondents) but

only slightly ahead of employment (220 out of 470);

b) It is a mistake to assume that employment-related trips occur solely on

‘peak’ journeys or that passengers travel to and from work at fixed times

every day, a significant number had a range of times to finish work and in

particular;

48% of those travelling ‘daily’ said that they didn’t travel at the same

time every day;

c) There was a significant number of work trips made after 1800;

d) The proportion of health-related trips was high at around 15%. This is

around three times the ‘norm’. Any significant reduction in service levels

would put pressure – including increased transport demands - on health

agencies and reduce the opportunity for patients to attend appointments;

e) Passengers were, in general, much less resistant to changes to times or

increases in fares than they were to reduced levels of service, when asked:

44% said they would travel less frequently if times changed;

70% said they would travel less frequently if the service was reduced but

only

36% said they would travel less frequently if fares increased.


Review of Harris & Lewis Bus Services ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 107

10Conclusions and Recommendations 10

10.1 Conclusions

10.1.1 Services are contracted out either as a whole or split between ‘Integrated’

(daytime) and Evening services. School journeys which are not open to the

public are tendered separately. All contracts are due to expire on 1 April but

the intention is to extend current contracts to August 2019 with a possible

further extension to 1 December.

10.1.2 The full year’s data reveals that 311,898 passengers were recorded and on-

bus revenue totalled £348,050, plus the concessionary fare reimbursement of

£173,112 giving total revenue of £521,163.

10.1.3 A total of 1,350 pupils have some form of entitlement to daily travel to school

for 190 days of term. This allows us to calculate an annual pupil ridership

figure. We calculated the number of bus trips by pupils to be 461,700 per

year.

10.1.4 The annual cost to CnES of the Lewis and Harris bus network is £4,195,000,

with 48% (£2,013,600) allocated to the public network and 52% (£2,181,400)

to Education transport. On this basis:

Revenue is covering only 20.6% of costs with the Comhairle covering the

remaining 79.4%;

The average subsidy per passenger on local bus services is £6.41; and

Each school trip per pupil costs £4.73 on average (£9.46 per schoolday).

10.1.5 It is clear that fares on the CnES network are generally lower than on the

comparator operations and in some instances the disparity is substantial

following a TAS comparison on the current cash fares to those charged in

other areas where the network is entirely secured or there has been no

deregulation.

10.1.6 Fares on the CnES network are at a level where even significant increases are

insufficient to prompt existing travellers to abandon the bus in favour of

private transport; A TAS model for the impact of different fare increase

scenarios is shown in the table below. All these calculations assume an

unchanged network:



Table 14: Predicted Revenue Changes for Different Scenarios

Increase

Additional

On-Bus

Additional

Concessionary Total Yield

5% £14,818 £9,465 £24,284

10% £29,242 £18,931 £48,172

15% £43,290 £28,396 £71,687

20% £56,964 £37,862 £94,826

Variable £48,980 £37,862 £86,842

10.1.7 There have been suggestions regarding moving towards the introduction of

smartcards on the bus network however smartcards are becoming yesterday’s

advance in ticketing rapidly. Other media are taking over which, in general,

can be adopted far more quickly and at much lower cost than running a

smartcard scheme. The ‘smart’ ticketing alternatives to a card based scheme

comprise:

the use of ‘contactless’ bank cards;

the use of ‘m-ticketing’ through the storage of a ticket on a mobile phone

app; and

QR codes on paper tickets.

10.1.8 The current marketing of the CnES bus network is limited – a series of paper

timetable leaflets is produced containing the services operated grouped by

geographical area and showing the fares charged. This information is

reproduced in electronic format on the CnES website. Which, apart from a

general overview of the bus services operated throughout the Western Isles

and a summary of the Scottish Concessionary Travel Scheme, contains

nothing but web versions of the paper timetable leaflets, replicating their

complexity and myriad explanatory notes.

10.1.9 Although not part of the CnES prescribed range of tickets MacLennan Coaches

offers a variety of rover tickets. Their major use is on service W2. Just under

400 were sold in the period between April 2017 and March 2018.

CnES Selected Options

10.1.10 Following on from TAS’s suggested three service delivery option in the interim

report, CnES has produced nine scenarios for the new network. These are:

a) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr before 0900 leave after 1700) and


b) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr before 0900 leave after 1700) and




c) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr for 0800 and 0900 leave after 1700 and



d) Commuter runs to Stornoway (arr for 0800 and 0900 leave after 1700 and



e) Maintaining the current network in its entirety;

f) Geographical larger lots including commuter runs to Stornoway, reduced



g) Geographical larger lots including commuter runs to Stornoway, reduced



h) Have the whole network as one contract, allowing the operator to provide


provided; and

i) Have the whole network as one contract, allowing the operator to provide



10.1.11 Other than in option e) the assumption is that there is no evening service

provided.

10.1.12 Operator consultation took place at the Bridge Centre, Stornoway between the

11th and 13th December. There was a mix of responses as to why operators

had bid for the contracts that they currently hold. The responses given

indicated that the overall impression was that no-one felt safe to overbid for a

contract.

Whilst all operators felt they had no issue in retaining drivers given current

service levels, the views on the difficulties of recruiting varied. Some

operators appeared to have a more proactive approach than others

The overall consensus appeared to be that the fares currently charged are

reasonable. Most operators felt that there was room for an increase,

especially in single fares which are used mainly be irregular passengers;

however, any increase should be done by a small annual uplift (generally 5

– 10 percent).

10.1.13 The suggestion of replacing coaches with low-floor vehicles generated negative

reactions from all operators who currently use coaches for stage carriage

work. There were three key reasons for this:



The terrain was seen as unsuitable;

The need to carry large amounts of shopping alongside luggage and even

bikes in the summer would overload a low-floor vehicle; and

The capacity available.

10.1.14 There were three key themes that came out of the open discussion following

the questions, these were:

The lack of notice period in the past between contract award and start date;

The relationship between Bus na Comhairle and those who are devising,

letting and tendering the contracts is seen as too close for some operators;

and

Regular updates on the progress of the preparation of the tenders needs to

be provided by CnES so that operators know what to expect and when.

10.1.15 There are some clear findings which should be considered in producing the

revised network:

a) Shopping is the dominant trip purpose (239 out of 470 respondents) but

only slightly ahead of employment (220 out of 470);

b) It is a mistake to assume that employment-related trips occur solely on

‘peak’ journeys or that passengers travel to and from work at fixed times

every day, a significant number has a range of times to finish work;

c) There is a significant number of work trips after 1800;

d) The proportion of health-related trips is high at around 15%. This is around

three times the ‘norm’. Any significant reduction in service levels would put

pressure on health agencies;

e) Passengers are, in general, much less resistant to changes to times or

increases in fares than they are to reduced levels of service.

10.1.16 The questionnaire indicated that the W1, W2, W10 and both parts of the W5

were the majority favoured and the majority of people used the bus for travel

to work and/or retail centres.

10.1.17 The majority of respondents also indicated that they believed current fares

offered value for money and would likely continue using the bus, even if fares

were increased, though this may be a necessity due to needing to travel for

work etc.



10.2 Recommendations

10.2.1 We recommend investigation into mobile ticketing and contactless payment as

a more cost effective method of improving ticket sales than smartcards.

10.2.2 It is apparent that a market exists for a day rover ticket which could be sold at

a premium price, but this depends on the size and extent of the new network.

10.2.3 The period of validity of ten journey tickets should be extended to at least a

month.

10.2.4 Regular updates on the progress of the preparation of the tenders needs to be

provided to operators by CnES so that they know what to expect and when.

10.2.5 Data on current patronage and revenue should be supplied to bidders for the

new contracts.

10.2.6 Bus na Comhairle should be available as a contingency in case of any contract

attracting no bids or when, in the Comhairle’s judgment, all bids are unduly

expensive.


Appendix A: Passenger Survey Questionnaire ▪ 113

Appendix A: Passenger Survey Questionnaire

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 242 March 19 Final · 3.1 Summarised Electronic Ticket Machine (ETM) data...

Documents

Transcript of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 242 March 19 Final · 3.1 Summarised Electronic Ticket Machine (ETM) data...