Meeting documents

To receive the presentation.

The Chair invited Tim Reynolds, Associate from WSP, to make the slide presentation on the proposals and to discuss completion of the form required by the DfT for allocation of the £8,169,839 capital funding and £3,695,020 revenue funding over the next three years.  He pointed out that the funding is not formal or binding at this stage, and no money has actually been issued; so at any point the government could say that they do not like our plans and take back part or all of the funding.  Therefore, we have to meet all of the DfT’s criteria and make a strong case for achieving what it is intended; we must meet their aims and priorities.  Many other LTAs are not in as good as a position as we are, so our partnership approach has functioned very well.  Given the amount of funding, we will not be able to achieve all of the aims in the BSIP, but we should be thinking about how we can deliver on the key objectives that stakeholders and the public raised at the time of writing the BSIP together; i.e., more buses to more places, services that run later and on weekends, improvements to frequencies in rural areas, and decarbonisation of the fleet.  We can achieve quite a lot of that even with the smaller funding allocation.  The Annex 4 form that was at the end of the award letter is what needs to be completed this week; it is a high-level form very much like the BSIP funding form where we indicated the types of projects we were working on, the effects they will have, the amount of funding needed for them, and the type of funding required to deliver them.  Once that is submitted, we need to start work on updating the EP in accordance, which can be done using the bespoke variation mechanism where we can add detail to any of the measures or operator objective that are outlined in Sections 3 and 4.  The draft of the updated EP needs to be submitted to the DfT by the end of June, which will give us time to take into consideration any comments from the DfT on the summary form that we submit by the end of this week.  So by the end of June, we will hopefully have a final set of capital and revenue items that we are all in agreement with, and using the change mechanism in the EP, we will have a Board meeting to agree the changes detailed in the EP.  Funding should then be received by the end of October.

He noted that the DfT’s top priority for capital investment is bus priority, meaning bus lanes, especially on all major roads with a high-frequency service, and also signalisation prioritisation, bus gates, removal of parking that impedes buses, etc.  In terms of revenue spending, DfT priorities centre on reducing or simplifying fares, creative initiatives, service and frequency increases, new and expanded services, and demand-responsive transport services.  As mentioned earlier, funding cannot be used for road schemes that benefit all modes of transportation, for general marketing, for provision of bus hardware, or for changes to existing infrastructure.  With respect to the last item, this leads to an interesting debate on the Taunton bus station, as it has been closed down and is defunct, so therefore it is not a functioning bus station.  However, as was also mentioned earlier, this may not be the right site in any case, so we will look at people’s movement around Taunton to see how that site relates to the local bus network, as well as looking at the likelihood of increasing bus priority through the town.

TR then presented the two major proposals for distributing the funding that has been received, given how there is a reduced amount to deal with and cannot fund everything that was planned for.  First, for capital spending, one proposal involves funding across the four major towns of Taunton, Wellington, Yeovil and Bridgwater; the other proposal involves making Taunton and the Taunton-Bridgwater corridor the focus for various initiatives like bus lanes, electrification, a Taunton hub, DDRT, etc.  With respect to revenue spending, the first proposal involves fare caps and lower P&R fares for the four main towns; the other proposal again focuses on the one transformational town of Taunton with fare caps, P&R fares, evening and Sunday support, and DDRT.

The pros and cons of the two types of proposals can be summarised by saying that the first approach would benefit the network more widely by spreading out the money over disparate locations, but this may spread the money too thinly and only achieve piecemeal portions of the priorities; while the second proposal is one that various authorities across the country have carried out successfully and that achieves some real benefits and serves as an exemplar by focusing investment in one location.  In addition, studying such programs which are already in operation can provide lessons learned on what works well and what to avoid.

TR stated that if bus priority capital spending was focused on Taunton as an exemplar transformational town, quite a lot could be accomplished in terms of bus lanes, junction improvements, and junction priority measures, rather than just a few bus lanes and reallocated parking space.  Some of the capital allocation could be used to develop a hub or hubs, which could take different forms allowing interchange between different modes of zero emission such as vehicle charging, bicycle hiring, and e-scooters, all linked into the bus network for wider mobility across Taunton.  Aside from Taunton, we are looking to develop a hub in Somerton to connect services; this could be used to create a demonstration project looking at the benefits of different sized hubs and how different hubs work in rural and urban locations, with demand-responsive transport and digital interaction having a role.  The advantage of focusing efforts and resources on a single location or corridor may allow us to gain better funding in the future by demonstrating that we effected the project very well, and this would allow us to extend the same measures across Somerset in other towns.  If we are able to provide a very good example in one location, that will serve as a case study that gives us a better chance of receiving more funding to replicate this elsewhere in the county.  TR believes that combining capital and revenue in one area might have a more positive effect than spreading it more thinly across Somerset and that we need to ensure that revenue and capital spending work together, e.g., if we make priority and vehicle speed improvements, we need to back that up with lower fares and increased levels of service in and around the town.

There is also the potential for bus priority measures to be supported by matching contributions from operators, as the DfT are very keen to see that operators reinvest savings into the network via either higher frequency on the same route or serving additional locations.  There are many opportunities to develop the network in the long term using the benefits made in the shorter term.  The possibility has also been raised that SCC may be able to review its own internal revenue support budget for public transport and potentially move some of it. 

There was then a discussion by the Board, with it being pointed out that the DfT clearly wants plans and proposals that can be delivered with their funding and can transform things.  It was noted that Cornwall Council has regular meetings with the Prime Minister’s special advisor on public transport, which makes it clear that this programme has an unusually high level of scrutiny, not just in terms of numbers that come out of it but also in terms of what goes into it, what is actually being done, and how the fund is used.  If we do not deliver on our plan, we will not receive more funding in the future, so we need to maximise what we can achieve with the current funding by spending the capital and revenue together and spending it where we can get the best return on it, including some improvements alongside/outside those using the BSIP money.  Taunton is the hub of the network, with the vast majority of our routes feeding into it, and if Taunton fails in terms of commercial viability, the whole network will fail.  It is worth looking also at the general need to protect the economy of Taunton and grow it by working with local retailers and resolving traffic congestion, so that Taunton is a place where people want to go.  After doing an ambitious transformation of Taunton, we can then move the same process out to Bridgwater and other areas.

It was opined that removing the car from the centre of Taunton has always been a priority and ambition, thus it makes sense to improve the bus services in Taunton and the radial routes to and from there to Bridgwater and other localities.  A major concern is passenger facilities and bus shelters, which improve the customer experience, and there are not just local buses to consider but also a considerable number of coach services also coming through Taunton such as National Express which need places to park.  This can create problems especially for handicapped users. 

The Chair stated that they have made the point to government that the model they are promoting does not suit rural areas, and via influential groups that point is continuing to be made.  He believes that the government is going to be releasing a future of transport rural strategy soon, which he hopes will include funding that can be bid for.  In the meantime, with the allocation that has been received, there is a need to stretch the benefits of the funding as much as possible, and although it may be focused towards the transformational opportunity in Taunton, the feeder routes need to be considered as well.

A concern was expressed that we will not be meeting of the levelling-up objectives of the White Paper released earlier in the year if all funding is directed toward making Taunton a transformational town, which would exclude other large areas of the districts.  It was suggested that an approach which complements existing regeneration schemes in key towns like Yeovil, Glastonbury, Bridgwater as well as Taunton needs to be considered, as there are public transport issues that could benefit from the capital element of this fund that may offer a more aligned levelling up approach.  It was also

asked if a potential hub in Somerton was linked with a DDRT solution, or if there would be a blended approach where the DDRT could expand out to other key towns and not just within the feeder services into Taunton.

The Chair agreed that there is conflict between the requirements they have been given for the current funding, which is quite urban focused, versus the levelling up requirements.  He stated that they need to ensure that they are not missing some points about levelling up in the submission to DfT, and there needs to be a conversation with DfT about ensuring that the proposals are of benefit to the whole county.  As regards DDRT, it was responded that some funding is needed to assist that process, and possibly three to five vehicles could potentially operate in a seven-day pattern.  It would make sense for them to be placed in the Taunton area, possibly in the higher up part of routes to feed some of those passengers into Taunton. 

An operator that is based mainly in the Yeovil area and the east of the county expressed his great worry about the future of bus services throughout the county if the approach of funding mainly Taunton is pursued, as this might decimate rural bus services in the remainder of the county.  The Chair responded that these concerns were valid but that the concern also existed that by spreading the funding too thinly would result in missing out on further opportunities for long-term funding from the government.  He said that we need to get this proposal right and demonstrate that we can use funding to actually grow patronage; therefore, the Council would certainly support the transformational and focused approach, but on the basis that it is genuinely believed that this will better position us for any future opportunities, without the intention to exclude other areas of the county.

It was noted that the national strategy addressed quite a lot of matters other than just the BSIP, and that we need to be looking at all the things that can be done which don’t require much money in Yeovil and rural areas.  Perhaps some funding could be derived from the community infrastructure levy, the civil money which comes to district council, which needs to be part of the discussion about how district money will be administered in the new unitary authority.  It was also emphasised that providing information is paramount, which development of the Think Travel portal will assist.  Another member noted that it was encouraging that the local authority and the major bus company in the county are both onboard and enthusiastic about the proposals for making Taunton a transformational town.  It was also suggested that Somerset did well in gaining funding compared to other regions because they work with the South West Transport Board, and that more work can be done via collaboration with Western Gateway and the surrounding councils.

The Chair thanked the Board for their participation in a very useful and helpful conversation; he pointed out that the receipt of funding was a demonstration that the county was a good investment and that we were in a very good position to build bus services in the county and make the case for more money in the future by concentrating the current funding on a focused area/feeder routes, albeit a rural strategy also needs to be defined.  The submission to the DfT will go in at the end of the week, giving DfT an opportunity to feed back to us by the end of June in order that we can refine the proposals accordingly. 

The Board received and discussed the proposals.