The Ability of Public Transport to Cope withTarget Passenger Increases: Final Report

8. THE VIEWS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR STAKEHOLDERS

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 This section summarises the results of the interviews with local authorities, SPT and the Scottish Executive about the targets for increases in use in public transport and work that is ongoing to meet the targets. This section deals with:

the targets and how they were determined
work that is ongoing to achieve the targets, and problems encountered in so doing
existing capacity problems and their relationship to targets
how targets are being monitored, and current views on progress towards them.

8.1.2 These sections in the main deal with bus and rail together, although for clarity in certain cases - particularly the discussion of measures to achieve targets - the two modes are dealt with separately.

8.2 The Targets and How They Were Determined

8.2.1 The targets that were identified earlier in the report ( see Section 2.2) are not repeated here, although they were confirmed by the interviews with the respective authorities. However, a number of additional relevant targets were highlighted as a result of the interview process. All four City authorities were interviewed. In addition, the authorities bordering on Edinburgh and Aberdeen were interviewed. It had been intended to interview Angus Council (in view of its relationship with Dundee), but this did not prove possible within the timescale available. proved impossible. Given the responsibility of SPT for public transport in the former Strathclyde region, other local authorities there were not interviewed. SPT itself as well as the Scottish Executive did take part in interviews with the study team.

8.2.2 The process of determining targets fell into two main categories: those who had carried out some form of modelling work and then set their targets in relation to what the model predicted might be achievable with the range of measures that it was likely could be delivered in that authority area; and those who set more "aspirational" targets that were not based on any previous modelling work.

8.2.3 An example in the first category was Dundee City Council, who used TRL transport policy scenario modelling software to examine likely changes in travel patterns that would be likely to arise from the level of measures (some parking control, improved bus services etc.) that they were considering for their Local Transport Strategy. Glasgow City Council also feature a number of targets in their LTS that related to what they felt that planned measures could achieve.

8.2.4 Examples falling into the latter category include the Scottish Executive - whose targets appear to be related to those in England - and the City of Edinburgh, where LTS targets had to relate to the aspirational targets set in the earlier "MOVING Forward" strategy. In one further case, targets were set in relation to an investment programme that had already been decided - in essence, the programme drove the targets rather than the targets being a measure of the objectives, which would then drive the programme.

8.2.5 In general, there were more authorities with aspirational targets than with targets set in relation to any modelling exercises; aspirational targets were nonetheless seen to be valuable in demonstrating what the authorities want to achieve from their transport policies.

8.2.6 Several targets, over and above those listed earlier in this report, were identified, primarily in the non-city authorities. These included:

a 2% per year growth in public transport use in Midlothian.
in Aberdeenshire, a considerable number of additional targets were mentioned:
- to increase bus passenger miles by 10% by 2006, on a base of 2000
- to increase public transport share's of the total transport market by 10% within 10 years
- to achieve a 1% modal shift from car users to bus and rail by 2010 on 1998 base (i.e. if car mode share now 65% then down to 64%).
- to introduce multi-operator through ticketing to 75% of services by 2004 and 100% by 2006
- to treble the number of park and ride sites from 1 to 3 by 2006
- to increase the number of park and ride journeys 6 fold by 2006.

8.2.7 Only Aberdeen City and Dundee have targets that address specifically work journeys and this was more a function of data availability than anything else. Both authorities noted that this does not mean that their targets are focused on trips to the city centre; they are also working to enhance capacity and use of public transport to employment sites outwith the city centre, especially the hospitals and universities. Other authorities, and the Executive, do not make clear what time of the day or week - they might wish growth targets to be met; as one respondent put it "I think we would be happy with any modal shift success". Only the City of Edinburgh has targets for particular other journey purposes; these are measured using Scottish Household Survey data.

Feasibility of Targets

8.2.8 Other than the modelling work carried out in the cases mentioned above, few authorities felt that they had carried out much additional work to test the feasibility of targets. Aberdeenshire and Fife both mentioned the role of consultation in checking the feasibility of targets, and Fife also referred to a recent successful SESTRAN bid to the preparation pool, part of which will be used to assess whether further targets are required.

Operator Involvement in Setting Targets and Working Towards Them

8.2.9 Interviewees stressed that operators had been involved in the consultation process for the LTS (or equivalent) and, as such, had been seen to agree with the general thrust of policy in its attempts to increase public transport patronage. In Strathclyde, the interviewee felt that the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Strategy (SPTS) targets reflected the bus and rail operators' publicly stated desire at the time of writing of the strategy (2000) to increase public transport patronage. No respondents were of the opinion that the specific level of targets in their strategies had been set in consultation with the operators, and there was some feeling that, whilst authorities were anxious to ensure that growth in patronage came from modal shift from car, to operators, the source of growth was less important. SPT also pointed out that they felt that, due to events in the rail industry since the SPTS targets were set, that national bodies such as the SRA were now less interested in growing rail patronage than they were formerly. But, in general, authorities painted a picture of operators who were happy to sign up to the spirit of targets: as one interviewee put it, no operators "expressed concern when consulted on the Draft Strategy. They were supportive of the general strategy and thrust of the LTS."

8.2.10 The fact that bus operators work in a commercial environment and hence may have differing priorities from those of the public sector was recognised. The majority of authorities, if not happy with this situation, at least accepted it. As one respondent said, for example, "operators share our aspirations of increasing public transport use, but are more likely to be driven by commercial/group targets". However, two respondents did cite particular difficulties with this approach. One council noted that the highly commercial approach of their local bus operator makes it prohibitively expensive for the council to procure extra peak hour buses; and another council explained that their members were strongly of the opinion that the commercial focus of the operators had reduced the ability of public transport in the area to cope, not with peak hour travel demands to the nearby city, but with the diverse range of travel patterns across its council area at different times and in different places.

8.3 Current Capacity Problems and their Relationship to Targets

8.3.1 The interviews explored the issue of areas, times and places on the network where public transport demand exceeds capacity. Fife Council's response emphasised their integrated approach to this issue on the Forth Bridges: they take a view of the bridges, together with associated bus priority and park and ride, as a system with a finite capacity for moving people in the peak two hours. The current limit on bus capacity is parking availability at Ferrytoll, which they are addressing with construction of an additional 1,000 spaces at present; the limits on rail capacity are platform and train lengths at stations in Fife, and also signalling, which does not currently permit bi-directional running on the bridge. Fife's analysis suggests that the addition of extra parking spaces at Ferrytoll, and platform lengthening to permit 6-car trains on Fife local services, will absorb the growth in demand for morning peak travel across the Forth up until 2008. They therefore suggested that the work that is due to begin this year to lengthen platforms to take 6 car trains took cognisance of this and at least includes preparatory work to accommodate 9 car trains.

8.3.2 In many other cases, local authority representatives made the point that the operators in their area do not provide them with detailed patronage data and therefore it was impossible for them to assess whether or not demand does indeed exceed capacity. That said, several flagged up anecdotal reports of capacity problems on the buses:

in Edinburgh, on corridors in the west of the City in particular.
Midlothian reported problems on the main corridor from Penicuik to Edinburgh (but within the Edinburgh city boundary).
in West Lothian, on the A89 corridor through Broxburn, where much new housing development has caused capacity difficulties. West Lothian also made the important point that many services from Livingston to Edinburgh in the morning peak have seating capacity, but that the overall capacity of the system is much reduced because the buses are stuck in traffic on the M8. The Council has applied to the Executive for permission to use the hard shoulder as a bus lane in the morning peak, and is awaiting a response.
in Aberdeenshire, the Stagecoach Bluebird services into and out of the city on the A90 and A96/B994 (north) were seen to be close to or over capacity, due partly to city residents using them, at least in the out of town direction.
Aberdeen, Dundee, SPT and East Lothian reported few problems with capacity on bus networks in their areas.
No bus capacity problems were highlighted by Glasgow City Council, although they did state that rail capacity problems often appear to stymie their aspirations for more stations and/or services.

8.3.3 In addition to the rail capacity problems discussed with Fife, several other authorities highlighted this issue in their areas:

East Lothian Council was concerned about the North Berwick line in the morning peak, and also GNER services to/from Dunbar.
West Lothian felt that the capacity problems on the Bathgate line, and to a lesser extent from Livingston South on the Shotts line, were some of their most serious public transport problems. Large numbers of standees are a regular occurrence on all peak services on the Bathgate line (where there are anecdotal safety concerns from commuters trying to get onto trains), and also on the 1722 and 1752 ex-Edinburgh on the Shotts line. The addition of 6-car trains on the Bathgate line will in their view permit them to "stand still" in terms of relating capacity to demand.
Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen made the point that the capacity problems on the Fife lines reduce the attractiveness of rail as a mode for day trips from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, due to the difficulty of finding a seat on the return leg.
SPT highlighted several lines with capacity problems, including those from Ayr and East Kilbride to Glasgow Central.

8.4 Achieving the Targets

Ensuring that Targets are Met

8.4.1 Local authorities and the Scottish Executive were all able to cite a lengthy list of projects that are intended to help in meeting their targets. Further details of these projects and schemes are available in Local Transport Strategies, in the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Strategy, and in national documents including the Transport Delivery Plan. Hence only a summary is provided here, to give a flavour of the types of projects and schemes that are being considered.

8.4.2 It is worth noting that none of the authorities interviewed attempted to predict the degree to which each of their schemes will move them towards the achievement of particular targets (e.g. to say "we plan to implement a quality bus corridor in the western part of the city which will achieve 25% of our total planned modal shift). Rather, authorities are implementing a package of measures that together are anticipated to deliver the changes required to move them towards the achievement of targets.

8.4.3 Measures that have been implemented, or are planned for implementation, include:

in West Lothian, platform extensions on the Bathgate rail line to permit 6 car operation (due for implementation in 2005), together with car park expansions at stations on that line and at Livingston South. East Lothian has also expanded car parking space at some of its stations on the North Berwick line.
also in West Lothian, the Fastlink bus priority project, providing bus priority on the A899 spine road through Livingston to the M8. This includes a high level of service, provided commercially.
In Glasgow, four Quality Bus Corridors (route length bus priority schemes), implemented in partnership with the PTE and operators; and plans for a further five corridors.
bus-based park and ride. This was mentioned by Midlothian and Edinburgh, and forms a key part of the strategy in the Forth Bridgehead area of Fife, and in Aberdeen/Aberdeenshire. The latter authority plans to open two new park and ride sites by 2005/06, on the A947 and A93.
quality partnerships with operators, especially in Aberdeen/Aberdeenshire, and in Dundee. In the latter city, the Bringing Confidence into Public Transport initiative (implemented) and now the Smartbus initiative (in implementation) are working towards the objective of a step change in information provision and bus priority. In the SPT area, SPT is supportive of bus priority initiatives by local roads authorities.
the Executive noted its interest in complementing bus quality partnership initiatives with pump-priming funding to move bus services from a position where they need subsidy, to one where they can be run commercially. They cited the Stagecoach Kick Start scheme as an example of this, and said that they were considering such a scheme for funding from the Executive. Similarly, they are also considering other ways to use Bus Service Operators Grant, perhaps to provide incentives to operators to carry more passengers.
there is also a desire to deliver improved rail services: a Dunbar local service for East Lothian, improved off-peak services to and expansion of station capacity in Edinburgh, the Waverley line through Midlothian, longer trains from Fife to Edinburgh, the new CrossRail service and Edinburgh Park station in Edinburgh, and better local services through Dundee and Aberdeen. Of these, Fife has enjoyed some success with new rail stations and (finally) the procurement of new rolling stock for local services; and Edinburgh City Council has delivered CrossRail and now Edinburgh Park station (which is under construction at time of writing (June 2003)). The reasons for the slow progress in the delivery of rail projects are discussed below.
the Executive is planning a rail link from Airdrie to Bathgate, and a link to Edinburgh Airport, both of which would significantly increase national rail patronage in Scotland, but whose implementation horizon lies outwith the 2006 limit of the national target for increases in rail use. The same argument is true of aspirations for a Glasgow Airport rail link and the re-development of Waverley station.

8.4.4 In answering this question, many respondents from local authorities were at pains to point out that they very much welcomed the increased capital funding that the Executive has made available for public transport over the past few years, through the PTF and ITF.

8.5 Capital and Revenue Funding to Enhance Capacity

8.5.1 The general view was clear: the role of local authorities is to provide capital items, and the services themselves - particularly at peak - would be supplied commercially by operators. This point was made particularly strongly by Aberdeen - where there are currently no tendered services - and by Midlothian. Local authorities pointed out that their revenue budgets for supported bus services are extremely small and that tender price increases well above the rate of inflation (increases of 50-60% in two years were cited by both Midlothian and West Lothian) are reducing these budgets still further; and, in any case, most authorities target these budgets at areas/times at risk of social exclusion, rather than on enhancing capacity on peak links to major towns and cities. One council also made the point that, since the advent of the national minimum concessionary fare, they were no longer able to address increases in tendered bus prices by increasing their authority's minimum concession (i.e. by putting up the flat fare to which its pensioners were entitled, prior to 30 ^th September 2002).

8.5.2 It was conceded by some - although by no means all - of the local authority respondents that they could envisage a situation in which they would be prepared to revenue fund peak services in order to meet demand at these times. One council noted that this situation is most likely to arise on bus services across the Forth Bridge, where operators have already considered increasing peak fares in order to reduce demand, rather than increasing capacity that would not be used at off-peak times. A further council had already funded additional services in order to cope with additional demand anticipated as a result of the new national minimum concessionary fares entitlement, and said in their interview that, "if clearly associated with LTS and other objectives, [we] would not be against the principle of supporting additional/enhanced services".

8.5.3 The current lack of revenue funding was an issue that most of the authorities interviewed wished to see highlighted to the Scottish Executive.

Non-Financial or Low-Cost Means of Meeting Targets

8.5.4 In their answers to this issue, most respondents pointed to measures such as public transport information, and low-cost infrastructure measures that they were implementing in order to encourage greater public transport use. Authorities such as Aberdeen and Dundee have allocated specific resources to awareness raising.

8.5.5 The outlined a number of non-financial measures that it felt would assist in meeting the targets:

the Bus Users' Complaints Tribunal.
the Joint Rail Board for Scotland, composed of the SRA, Network Rail, the Executive and passenger and freight operators; this is intended to discuss barriers to performance, and ways to overcome these.
more flexible registration for demand-responsive bus services.
travel awareness campaigns.

Working Regionally to Achieve Targets

8.5.6 All the local authorities interviewed operate in partnership arrangements with other authorities. This includes Angus and Dundee who, although not part of a "formal" regional transport partnership like NESTRANS or HITRANS, work in partnership on specific projects, such as the Tay Estuary Rail Study, for example. Those authorities that are in formal partnerships are attempting to develop Regional Transport Strategies which incorporate targets that are themselves a reflection of the targets in Local Transport Strategies. In addition, there has been joint working on specific projects: for example, the Waverley, Bathgate-Airdrie and Stirling-Alloa rail lines; the A90 bus priority and park and ride measures in Edinburgh and Fife; and the north Clydeside QBC in Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire.

8.6 Problems in Working to Meet Targets

8.6.1 All interviewees bar one cited problems in the rail industry as a key confounding factor in their attempts to improve local rail services to meet targets. All were unsure as to how they could progress proposals for additional local services through the re-franchising process. There were also more specific examples where respondents:

felt that the length of time that it has taken to secure additional trains and longer platforms on their local services has been excessive, and is caused by the complexity of the industry with its many different actors, together with the problems that have arisen since the rail accident at Hatfield, which led to severe network disruption and, ultimately, the replacement of Railtrack with Network Rail.
have both been frustrated in the submission of RPP bids for additional off-peak services. In the case of the latter authority, the bid was close to submission when the RPP was abandoned by the SRA.
In the light of the Tay Estuary Rail study, one council is unsure as to how to take forward its recommendations, although takes some comfort from local service being included in all scenarios within the Scottish Strategic Rail Study (SSRS).
felt that the demise of Railtrack had slowed down the process for their rail proposals, and were now uncertain as to how this could be implemented, given the SRA's decision not to fund additional infrastructure measures until some time beyond 2006.
were satisfied with the pace of work in taking the Waverley Line through the Parliamentary Bill procedure.
were somewhat sceptical about the rail industry's commitment to growth, and was concerned that local rail services should be controlled more locally.

8.6.2 Problems were also experienced with attempting to increase levels of bus use. Two councils emphasised that a key plank of their strategy was a quality partnership with their two main operators, and that this had delivered significant benefits, especially in terms of improved vehicle specification. Nonetheless, there were areas where it was harder to make progress, such as on standards for numbers of standees at peak periods, or on fares. They anticipated that discussion on these items would go forward into a revised quality partnership, to be adopted around the same time that their revised LTS is submitted, in 2004. One of the two councils also noted that it is difficult for one of the local bus companies to commit to the provision of new vehicles, as they must bid at a corporate level for these. This can slow the progress of QBP implementation.

8.6.3 One council has faced difficulties of obtaining additional buses in the morning peak at realistic tender prices, as it is uneconomic for the operators to supply capacity that is not used for the rest of the day. Another council had attempted to forge a quality partnership with operators but, some time into its negotiations, had found operators restructuring their networks in the area, focusing on the main corridors into the nearby city and leaving large areas, previously served, without bus services. This has caused severe problems for the Council's supported bus service budget and has led Councillors to adopt a policy of lobbying the Executive for re-regulation. The interviewees in this council were strongly of the opinion that the quality partnership approach is a difficult one to adopt for authorities such as theirs, because there is relatively little that the authority can offer to the bus operator.

8.6.4 One council mentioned a number of problems that have caused progress on its their implementation of public transport capacity enhancements to be slower than planned:

Public opposition to the parking restrictions associated with QBCs.
Difficulties in identifying sites and services - both for rail and bus - where large scale strategic park and ride could be situated.
Capacity problems on trains, and with rail infrastructure, which make it difficult to add large park and ride sites, or new services and stations. At times, the aspirations of the PTE and the Council seemed not to be entirely congruent; this is a problem, from the Council's point of view.

8.6.5 One Council mentioned a problem not directly related to transport: air quality. The fact that, in certain parts of the city centre, streets are approaching thresholds of safe NO ₂ concentrations, severely restricts the operators' and Council's ability to increase bus services. The interviewee felt that the Executive's decision to adopt a more stringent standard for PM10s in Scotland than in England only compounded this problem.

8.6.6 In general, Councils faced similar problems in working to meet targets, but at different degrees of severity.

8.7 Monitoring and Review of Targets

8.7.1 Monitoring of targets was seen as problematic, due mainly to the difficulty of obtaining data from operators. This problem was, in some areas, not as severe as it was formerly, but nonetheless remains a key constraint on detailed monitoring. Other authorities were dependent on the Scottish Household Survey and/or the census for monitoring; in the case of those using census data, this dictated when monitoring milestones would occur. Aberdeen/Aberdeenshire and Dundee are about to embark on a review of targets in the light of 2001 census data.

8.7.2 Several authorities felt that they would be using the 2004 deadline for the resubmission of Local Transport Strategies as an opportunity to review their targets, programmes and proposals for monitoring, and to better inter-relate all these different issues to produce a more coherent strategy overall. Interestingly, preliminary results from Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow and Edinburgh all indicate small progress towards the achievement of targets.

8.8 Summary

8.8.1 This discussion of the results from interviews with local authorities has highlighted the following generalities of the situation with regard to public transport's ability to cope, both with existing demand, and new demand that is implied in local authority and national targets:

the majority of larger authorities have set targets for growth in public transport use and/or mode shift away from car; these targets were set in one of two ways - aspirationally, or in relation to some form of modelling exercise.
problems of insufficient capacity to meet demand are most acute in morning peak travel into large cities. Authorities do not generally have quantitative measures of the scale of the problem, and so the results of this study will assist them.
most authorities have a wide range of measures that they have implemented, or are intending to implement, to achieve their targets. It is the package as a whole, rather than the sum of individual parts, that is intended to achieve results.
there are problems in working to achieve targets. These are caused, firstly, by the difficulties of delivery in the rail system; and, secondly, by the differing priorities of commercial bus operators and local authorities who are more concerned with maximising social benefit.
nonetheless, there is evidence from some authorities that they are moving towards the achievement of their targets.

« Previous | Contents | Next »

The Scottish Government

Publications

On this page: