Chapter 4: Determining the Inputs and Outputs of a QBP
4.1 Component Types
The setting of objectives of a QBP will normally result in a requirement to improve the bus product itself. The objectives may determine a requirement to improve 'external' factors. External factors are factors which influence the bus product or the decision to use it. For example, arrangements with employers or major trip attractors such as hospitals, planning policies, or parking policies are external factors which may be considered.
Improvements to the bus product and its relative attractiveness should represent the core of the QBP.
External factors can often be best addressed by one organisation using its powers alone. These will not benefit noticeably from co-ordination with other QBP improvements although they may form part of an overall bus strategy.
There is a temptation to link together all actions targeted on increasing public transport use. This may lead to problems. The QBP mechanism was specifically developed to address the areas of interest that require co-ordinated actions by several organisations. If QBP development does not retain a tight focus, it can become too involved in peripheral issues. Only those 'external' factors which directly benefit from the combined involvement of the partners should be included within the QBP.
Improvements to the bus product may be divided into five key components:
- bus priority (traffic priority)
- information and marketing
- passenger infrastructure
- vehicles and service quality
- services, fares and ticketing.
There is currently no formula that can predict the outcome of a given package of measures. Outcomes remain difficult to accurately predict but depend upon:
- the appropriateness of the component improvements adopted to the geographical area, or type of service
- the overall level of expenditure within QBP schemes and/or processes n the mixture and comprehensiveness of the QBP package delivered.
Figure B illustrates the 'return rate', measured as an increase in bus fare income per £1 of expenditure on QBP schemes, that is believed to have resulted from a sample of schemes. There is necessarily a high degree of subjectivity in any analysis of this type. The estimated effects of each component part of the QBP has been extrapolated in this analysis from total scheme effects. The estimates were calculated by contrasting schemes with and without each individual element.
Figure B illustrates that the higher rates of return, in terms of increased numbers of passengers, are achieved as a result of some of the most simple, basic measures. There is evidence to suggest that once the basic 'barriers' to use have been addressed it is necessary to look to more sophisticated measures.
Monitoring of passenger perceptions over several years, however, appears to indicate that it is many of the basic components of the product that act as barriers. Investment in sophisticated additions to a product that has basic deficiencies will normally achieve a poor result.
Table 1 shows a hierarchy of barriers to bus use based on passenger research. This hierarchy may form a logical outline assessment of the process of choosing QBP components, as described in sections 4.2 to 4.7.
Table 1 : Hierarchy of Barriers to Bus Use
Barrier level
|
Problem Area
|
Explanation
|
|
Basic |
Difficulty in understanding the service |
Most infrequent or non-users perceive
the bus product to be ‘difficult’ to fully understand (74%) and
greater simplicity in services, timetables and fares are felt to be
necessary |
|
Long waiting times |
The majority of potential users (81%)
believe that a ‘turn up and go’ level of frequency (at least once
every 10 minutes) is needed to secure their custom |
|
|
Service unreliability |
Buses are particularly vulnerable to the
adverse effects of urban traffic congestion and perceived unreliability of
service (by 63% of respondents) |
|
|
Poor waiting environment |
The waiting environment for buses is
frequently exposed, poorly positioned and lacking in facilities. Nearly
80% of infrequent passengers regard their bus stop waiting environment as
‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ |
|
|
Buses that are elderly and/or in poor
condition |
Although ‘mid life’ buses (5-10
years) are not necessarily perceived as unacceptable, provided they are in
good condition, poor bus age or condition is identified by 53% of
potential users as a barrier |
|
|
Poor fare value |
Only 37% of surveyed passengers felt
that their existing fare represented ‘value for money’ although this
was much higher for ‘promotional |
|
|
Intermediate |
Difficulty in accessing buses |
Flat low floor buses permit much easier
bus access, particularly when accompanied by young children and around 38%
of existing users report some difficulty with high floor buses |
|
Low standards of customer care |
Almost 90% of existing bus users have
experienced or witnessed an unsatisfactory performance by a member of the
bus operators staff and, despite sympathy for the difficult job of bus
driving almost 30% do not feel that customer care standards are acceptable |
|
|
Poor speed compared to car |
Slow passenger boarding/ticketing and
lack of traffic priority are felt by 42% of infrequent users to result in
poor bus speeds compared to cars |
|
|
Low standards of publicity and
presentation |
Only 18% of bus users feel that
publicity standards and the presentation of the bus product is
‘reasonable’ or ‘good’ compared with products with a similar sales
value |
|
|
Advanced |
Inferior standards of comfort to car |
Comfort standards within a bus are
regarded as inferior to that of a car by 88% of infrequent users |
|
Personal security considerations |
27% of all adults (and 39% of women)
identify personal security as a reason for preferring car to bus use |
|
|
Perceptions of mixed environmental
performance |
Although 74% of adults accept that bus
use is more ‘green’ than car use 52% identify bus noise, emissions and
visual intrusion as detracting from the product |
|
|
Failure to adopt new technology
applications |
31% of infrequent users believe that bus
operators have not properly embraced new technology and refer to
information and ticketing deficiencies in this area |
Figure B : Benefit to Cost Ratio of Quality Improvements
4.2 The Balance of Components to Adopt
Different approaches to achieving a balance of components need to be adopted. The balance depends on local circumstances. The approach adopted may vary, according to the objectives and strategy of the QBP. The methodology used in this guidance is suitable for use in typical QBPs, where increasing bus use is a prime objective.
The relative importance of different barriers to bus use among the population of the area covered by the QBP should be determined. Table 1 above provides a useful framework for considering the relative importance of barriers. Individual local circumstances then need to be considered in order to assess the importance of each local barrier. This can be determined by:
- detailed market analysis/consultation - this should be done where:
- the most reliable answer possible is required to justify expenditure
- partners cannot agree upon what measures require improvement
- there is more than one feasible strategy or prioritisation of projects and the optimum strategy is not clear
- relating to partner perceptions - this should be done where:
- partners have strong perceptions of barriers and weaknesses within the existing bus product
- partners can draw on the results of earlier market research or consultation exercises
- trial and experimentation - this should be done where:
- a very high risk approach has been adopted within the QBP.
Where the QBP strategy includes the adoption of different approaches to different markets (rather than a single consistent approach), this exercise needs to be conducted for each market.
Where the QBP strategy proposes that improvements should be targeted toward those specific groups of people, this exercise needs to be conducted for each group. Specific groups should be targeted where particular groups are most likely to create the result sought by the objectives.
4.3 Ranking or Scoring of Barriers
A process of ranking the relative importance of barriers may be useful in determining priorities. Typical barriers to consider may include:
- service levels (for example, poor service frequency)
- routes
- cost/fares
- journey times
- reliability
- vehicle standards
- safety/security
- understanding of existing product
- stop facilities
- information.
4.3.2 One approach might be to score each of the barriers. The more important the barrier the higher the score. So, for example, the two most import factors might be scored as 10, with a secondary factor scored 5. This should be expressed as a percentage of the total of all the scores, the percentage barrier score. For example 10+10+5=25, so the first two factors would be 40% each, and the secondary factor 20%. Available QBP resources could then be allocated in proportion to the percentage barrier score.
A mix of components should be selected which can be used to address these barriers. The barriers addressed by different components are indicated below.
4.4 Bus Priority
Bus priority measures involve giving greater traffic priority to the bus mode than is currently the case. This can be achieved through the re-distribution of existing road space. It can also be achieved through other technological solutions, such as priority phases or bus activation of traffic signals, 'advance' signals and Selective Vehicle Detection (SVD).
Bus priority is used to:
- reduce bus journey times relative to journey times by other modes
- improve reliability of bus operation to give greater consistency to service provision
- provide buses with access to certain locations which are restricted for general traffic
- improve the efficiency and productivity of buses to allow a higher frequency of service to be provided with the same resource level, or improve commercial performance to facilitate investment.
When considering traffic management measures it is important that walking routes to bus stops are given full consideration. Walking time can represent a significant (up to 40% in some urban areas) part of total journey time for travel by bus. Some measure of pedestrian priority on well-used walking routes to bus stops (through signal controlled crossings and other measures) can significantly reduce total travel time for bus users.
Bus priority is generally appropriate for areas, routes or locations where:
- traffic is not free flowing at bus operating speeds (typically 16-20 mph in urban areas) at all times, or
- a policy of restricting access to certain locations or areas to certain modes has been adopted.
4.5 Information and Marketing
Information and marketing are two distinct concepts. Information is the provision of knowledge and understanding that allows or assists passengers in using the service. Marketing is concerned with matching the needs, wants and demands of the customers with a bus product capable of supplying those needs, wants and demands.
Information is used to allow and/or assist passengers in using the bus product. The provision of simple and clear information for all users on the routes, times, fares and tickets available for bus travel is therefore an information function. This function may also contribute to marketing.
The Transport Act 2000 gives local transport authorities new duties and powers regarding information provision. Each authority must now determine what information local users want and ensure that it is provided. The authorities may require bus operators to provide or fund the information provision that is determined as necessary. The local transport authority, when considering the information strategy for a QBP project, should have regard for its general position on information required.
Marketing is used to encourage those for whom the bus product is an appropriate mode of transport for their journey to use the bus product.
Information is appropriate to all QBPs. Marketing should always be conducted where a QBP's objectives require passengers to shift from other modes in order to be met. Marketing may be used to encourage existing customers to travel more.
4.6 Passenger Infrastructure
A large proportion of bus stops offer either no shelter or inadequate shelter. Many are not felt by users to provide adequate information about the services calling at the stop, the route, the times of services or the fares charged. Inadequate lighting, poor maintenance, unsatisfactory location (often remote or exposed) and the absence of other facilities (for example, seating, litter bins, or telephones) all contribute to a poor image.
Passenger infrastructure improvements are used to provide:
- more effective, safer links for walk trips to bus stops n a more attractive waiting environment
- level or improved boarding onto vehicles
- shelter, seating and other passenger facilities at stops
- physical evidence of the existence of a service at the roadside.
Improvements to passenger infrastructure are appropriate to all QBPs.
4.7 Vehicles and Service Quality
Most QBPs to date have addressed some elements of vehicle standards and service quality. The most common QBP components have been:
- provision of new (low floor) buses
- establishment of a dedicated pool of drivers for the QBP service
- customer care and 'defensive driving' training for staff.
Improvements to vehicles and service quality are used to:
- provide a more pleasant experience for the passenger while on board the
vehicle, including:
- comfort
- cleanliness/general ambience
- ride quality
- provide easier access to the vehicle, particularly for those groups who previously had difficulty gaining access to buses
- provide greater information and assistance - these aspects are covered under information and marketing
- create an image of higher quality to other road users - again covered under information and marketing.
Improvement to vehicles and service quality is appropriate to all QBPs.
4.8 Service, Fares and Ticketing
Improvements to service routing, timing or frequency form an important part of measures that can be taken to reduce 'barriers' to bus use. Changes to the charging structure for use of the bus product (both of a permanent and promotional nature) are also important.
Some QBPs have primarily addressed the peripheral elements of the total package. They have not redressed any problems with the core bus product, represented by the route, timetable and faretable. Consequently they have frequently failed to optimise potential use.
Improvements to service, fares and ticketing are used to make the bus product:
- suit existing or predicted demand patterns better
- more readily understandable by potential passengers
- be perceived as better 'value for money'.
Significant improvements to service, fares and ticketing (such as major service revisions or fare reductions) are appropriate only to QBPs where a higher risk strategy (defined in 3.16) has been adopted. Such measures often involve the operator risking existing revenue and patronage.
Particular care must be taken to take account of competition considerations in these cases. Any measures or agreements that impact on the ability of an operator to compete or which imply 'market sharing' or 'price fixing' can only be considered in the context of competition legislation (see chapter 7).
4.9 External Factors
External factors are those factors that while not a part of the bus product, directly influence the bus product or the decision to use the bus product.
Improvements to external factors are used to:
- make the QBP easier to deliver
- make the bus relatively more attractive to potential passengers than other modes.
External factors are only appropriate to QBPs with:
- a broad scope
- strong links between actions taken as part of the QBP and wider strategies.