Scottish Borders Council

Agenda item

Berwickshire Locality Plan

Minutes:

4.1     There had been circulated copies of a presentation on Transport Planning by Timothy Stephenson, Passenger Transport Manager for Scottish Borders Council.  The Chairman outlined the background around the problems with regard to transport, advising that this was an opportunity to raise any ideas and to think about various options.  Mr Stephenson advised that engagement with communities to assess views was very important and group discussions would take place after the presentation.  Mr Stephenson explained that the subsidised local bus services across the Borders currently cost £1.5m per annum.  The local bus service was not a statutory requirement but was discretionary and it was school transport that was a statutory requirement.  There was an obligation this year to make savings of £85k which had already been secured, without further cuts to bus services, and £165k saving was required for 2020.  The plan for 2020 and beyond identified a number of under-performing bus routes with passenger numbers declining and the cost per passenger subsidy was very high.  He also outlined the programme to meet with communities and Bus Users Scotland to form a transport plan.  The local bus services in the area were highlighted in the presentation with information relating to the net subsidy per annum, total passengers per annum and average cost per passenger outlined for service number: 72 Berwick/Hutton/Paxton; 85/87 Kelso/Greenlaw/Berwick; 710 Kelso/Coldstream; and 902 Westruther/Stichill/Kelso routes, with the 85/87 route at £11 per passenger and £47,749 net subsidy being too high.  The Borders bus network needed to be reviewed to potentially put something better in place. The average cost per passenger across the Borders bus network was £3.65.  This did not mean that these routes would be withdrawn but as they could not be sustained, there was a need to find a way to still be able to provide a service.  Some ideas and innovations suggested were: NEED of Alnwick, a Community Transport Scheme; West Linton taxi scheme; Bo’ness Community Bus and non-bus related options – eg e-car, e-bike, trip share; and community transport/social car schemes.

 

4.2     This consultation was about hearing from communities who had any new suggestions and for them to play their part by bringing innovative ideas to take this project forward.  There was a full discussion held and Mr Stephenson answered the following questions:

 

Questions/Comments

(a)       Question – why had Westruther never had a bus through it for years?

Response – there was a demand led bus service which had been in place since 2010 and could be run on the back of other routes or via the school bus service.  A telephone call was required first to SBC to arrange to be picked up and be taken anywhere along the route.

 

(b)       Question – what percentage of cost was subsidy and who was using the route?

Response – in most cases where the subsidy was very high because passenger numbers were very low – ie on the Greenlaw route, the one-way fare was £3 but was costing £14 as SBC subsidy was £11.  As an example, the gross cost of the 67 route Berwick/Galashiels was £890k bringing in revenue of £840k so the net cost was £50k.

 

(c)       Question – would there be an integrated transport system around Reston Station similar to the Galashiels interchange station and would services in Berwickshire east to west, for example to the BGH, be improved?

Response – as we did not have a railway in the Borders until 2015 there had been Scottish Government funding to allow some connections to continue but passengers were not using the services.  Work would be carried out with communities in Reston to lobby the government for funding but people would need to continue to use the services otherwise they would not be sustainable.  Transport Scotland would be attending a meeting in Reston Village Hall on 18 September which would be open to all for a full discussion on the points raised.

 

(d)       Question – there seemed to be a demand for responsive services that were not being publicised – how would this be revisited?

Response – if SBC were not advertising services this would need to happen as SBC received revenue.  Leaflets would be available at Community Council meetings for distribution around villages and letters would be circulated to communities with information on where the services were.  It was noted that the more people that used the service then the subsidy cost per passenger would reduce.

 

(e)       Question – one of the issues was the lack of confidence that communities generally had in public transport so there would be a decline until a more comprehensive system was put in place – ie feeder services into main routes although communities may not be in the best position to think through the design. How would you communicate wider with communities?

Response – we do not have all the answers to hand but one solution could be looking at the 85/87 route as it was not a well-used service and consider not having the service at all, but instead using a feeder bus service into the main route as an option.

 

(f)        Question – suppressed demand – there could be lots of people who were not using the bus service but would use it if they had confidence in it?

Response – there would be drop in sessions in the areas where people do not use the bus service and this would be an opportunity for people to attend and tell us why they did not use buses.

 

(g)       Question – what was SBC’s contribution to the West Linton taxi scheme?

Response – our contribution to the bus route was £135k, the same amount for Dumfries & Galloway and Midlothian Councils.  The tender came up after the fifth year and the subsidy was reduced to £35k so the route was still available 7 to 7. SBC had given initial funding to the taxi service from Penicuik to West Linton after 9pm which linked in to buses from Edinburgh. However, the application to the Council’s Community Fund had been unsuccessful and the taxi service had stopped.  It was noted that this project would always be on a knife edge if reliant on annual fund raising or people in the communities leaving the area so no longer requiring the service.   

 

(h)       Question – what was the breakdown of the large increase of operation costs +20%?

Response – Border Buses tendered a few years ago so it had not increased here yet.  The 20% figure came from the national average and the number of operators in the Scottish Borders was now down to 5 from 12.

 

(i)         Question – the main route from Berwick to Galashiels was using big buses with occasionally only one or two people on the bus, so why was a smaller bus not used?

Response – this had already been looked at.  It would only be a small saving by reducing the size of the bus as the cost for the fuel and driver did not change. 

It was also noted that there had been a lot of issues with the 60 service which did not seem to have any regular users, with inconsistent numbers and there was no logic behind this.

 

4.3     Those present at the Area Partnership meeting then split into groups to discuss specific passenger transport related network and connection issues within the Berwickshire area and to highlight any options going forward.

 

MEMBER

Councillor Rowley joined the meeting during the above item.

 

Supporting documents:

 

CONTACT US

Scottish Borders Council

Council Headquarters Newtown St. Boswells Melrose TD6 0SA

Tel: 0300 100 1800

Email:

For more Contact Details