MEMORANDUM TO TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE
BUS SERVICES ACROSS UK
From Ray Bentley (Personal views not those of any
organisation/company with which I'm associated)
Previously Head of Transport at Plymouth City Council
and currently a Non-Executive Director of Northern Ireland Transport
Holding Company.
Aspects of Inquiry covered
Two specific aspects of the inquiry, bus priority
and Traffic Commissioner's powers are covered below in one section
as they are seen as interconnected. A further issue not specifically
designated in the Committees call for input is added as it is
seen as central to the performance of the bus; the demand management
aspect of cars as the 'stick' to complement the 'carrot' aspect
of better bus services.
Another specific aspect that the inquiry wishes to
cover is Concessionary Fares. The contribution below concentrates
on the extension of "free or discounted travel on all forms
of public transport?" It points out the threat to attaining
the challenging growth targets in the Community Rail Development
Strategy and even the existence of such lines if the abstraction
to free bus continues. There is also inequality among pensioners
who live on a bus route and those for whom rail is the better
or only option.
Bus Priority and Traffic Commissioner Powers
The Select Committee seeks best practise on bus priority.
Technical aspects and the format of bus priority have other channels
to better promulgate best practise but the Select Committee could
be helpful in highlighting best practise at the policy level on
bus priority. The key is to make quantified targets on BUS
SPEED a central part of transport policy documents. The
only examples known to the author are listed below.
STATUTORY QUALITY BUS PARTNERSHIPS. The DfT have
a draft template for SQBPs (but call them Quality Partnership
Schemes). Schedule A-'Benefits' - in that template suggests that
the benefit of improved bus speed be quantified as the round trip
time on a corridor.
TORBAY. The Torbay LTP 2006/11 commits to a SQBP
and its Annex C has an outline draft of it, which mentions a 10%
bus speed improvement in the life of the partnership. Torbay intends
to rely on Red Routes to deliver higher bus speed but implementation
is held up over enforcement issues. The only SQBP reported as
implemented is Dundee but the author is not aware of its approach
to quantifying bus speed. Progress with SQBPs is disappointingly
slow.
BELFAST. Great Britain is being shown the way by
Northern Ireland. The Belfast Metropolitan Transport Plan specified
a 15% improvement in bus speed having measured it as 19kph in
the 'Problem Statement' phase of the work at 8.13 and forecast
it as 9kph by 2020 at 8.15 in the 'do nothing' scenario. There
is a Partnership Board to deliver BMTP and Translink (the operator)
has included a Key Performance Indicator on bus speed of 20kph
by 2011 in its Corporate Plan.
However, this is still at the 'policy' level and
whilst it is essential that such quantified BUS SPEED TARGETS
are set, they still have to be delivered.
There is little direct incentive or penalty on highway
authorities to deliver on bus speed. Indeed all the incentives
of placating the local press, local traders and opportunistic
opposition parties are to not introduce comprehensive and effective
bus priority. As (if) we move on to the enforcement of bus priority
via cameras the outcry from the car lobby will be as for that
on safety cameras. There is a need for a fundamental change to
the delivery of higher bus speed.
On rail in GB there is a formal contract between
operator and track provider that quantifies train speed and has
penalties for non-delivery. The same regime is needed for bus
speed. The key part of the Bus Strategy for an area must be the
BUS SPEED PLAN. There would have to be a range of minima
targets for different urban areas set by DfT within the LTP process
and the awarding of LTP settlement should be dependant on the
higher than minima speed targets set by authorities. Their delivery
should be a key part of the APR process. The Traffic Commissioner
also needs extended powers.
Operators are frequently taken to task by the TC
for late running and use (quite reasonably) the congestion defence
and put more time in their timetables to avoid further criticism.
The TC should have powers over the HA as well as Operator and
monitor bus speed targets set in the LTP/Bus Strategy/Bus Speed
Plan. The TC should have powers over the HA to impose compensation
payments (as with NR to TOCs) from the HA to the bus operator
for persistent non-attainment of bus speed targets. Low speed
does cost the operator more resource and lost revenue from deterred
passengers.
The two tables below layout 4 scenarios of a typical
urban bus route. The base is the current journey time, frequency
and operating cost base. Improvements by moving to non-driver
issued tickets is the 2nd scenario offering some improvement
but not enough time saving to increase frequency with the same
number of buses. In the absence of bus priority improvement the
3rd scenario tests the effect of a subsidy to enhance
frequency, based on £70k/bus. It produces results but at
a subsidy cost which if needed across many routes would be very
high. The 4th scenario delivers significant bus priority,
6 minutes trimmed off 29 minutes. It also increases reliability
and allows recovery time to be reduced from 3 to 2 minutes. If
delivered in a Statutory Quality Bus Partnership scheme, the time
saving and higher revenue could be ploughed back into higher frequency
and increase passengers by 45.5%, produces a surplus for the operator
and no subsidy requirement. This emphasises the need to deliver
significant bus priority if passenger growth is to be delivered
cost effectively.
Journey and Operation characteristics
Journey Change
H/way Waiting(a) Change Cycle Buses
Time (min.) %
(min.) Time (min) % Time(m)
Base 32 -
10 5 - 70
7 (3 mins recovery)
Faster Boarding 29 9
10 5 0 64
7
Subsidy plus
Faster Boarding 29 9
7.5 3.75 25 64 9
No Subsidy but
faster Boarding
plus Bus Priority
& less Recovery 23 27
5 2.5 50 50 10
- Taken as half headway at these frequencies
Passenger and revenue generation and cost change
(to base 100)
Base Freqency(b)
Speed (c) New Pax New Subsidy Profit
Generation
Generation & Revenue Cost £k pa £k
pa
Base 100 -
- - 100 0
0
Faster Boarding 100 0
4.5 104.5 100 0 22
Subsidy plus
Faster boarding 100 16
4.5 120.5 129 42(d) 0
No subsidy but
Faster boarding
Plus bus priority
& less recovery 100 32
13.5 145.5 143 0
12
- TRL "The demand for public transport: a
practical guide", waiting time elasticity (page 20) -0.64
- Same source, In Vehicle Time elasticity (page
20) -0.4 to -0.6, use mid-range -0.5
- Net after all extra revenue returned to subsidiser,
assumes gross tender and based on £70k per bus
Demand Management - 'Stick' aspects to improve
ridership of buses
The growth of bus use in London has occurred due
to the introduction of better bus services and the Congestion
Charge. As they were introduced simultaneously it is hard to attribute
quantities to each. However, the EU's DG VII paper, Transport
Research APAS Urban Transport: Pricing and Financing of Urban
Transport, concluded via theoretical deduction and empirical observation
that the indirect/push/stick variables have greater mode switch
potential than the direct/pull/carrot variables.
Unless we accept this when setting policy on parking
supply and pricing, progress will not be made in growing bus use.
We also need to make more of total car cost marginal costs paid
at the point of use, any efforts to make the bus more attractive
by 'pull' variables such as bus speed, fare level, frequency etc.
alone will not be cost effective in the urban context.
Concession Fares - "on all forms of public
transport"
PRESSURE FOR EXTENSION TO LOCAL RAIL TO DELIVER EQUITY
ACROSS UK
Whilst this is a Select Committee inquiry members
will be aware of the EDM at Westminster seeking extension of concession
fares to rail. (EDM 1573). However, pressure for this is also
apparent in Scotland and Wales. The Local Government and Transport
Committee of the Scottish Parliament in Report 293 rejected the
idea of all day concession on local rail but at paragraph 229
asked the Minister to look at off peak concession fares on rail.
In Wales the Assembly are being asked by two of the transport
consortiums to extend or pilot concession fares to/on the Conwy
Valley, Borderlands, Cambrian Coast and Heart of Wales lines.
The table (on last page) below shows that 100% of NI, 53% of Scotland,
45% of England, 0% of Wales and 45% of UK populations are covered
by a free or low flat fare concession on local rail/tram/underground.
Pressure for equity between different schemes on discount level
and geographic coverage has led to rounding up to the best. It
will not be possible to resist forever such discrimination against
the rail mode or the inequality between pensioners who live on
bus routes and those whose best or only option is rail.
ABSTRACTION AND THREATS TO COMMUNITY RAIL
Report 179 of the Scottish Executive's Development
Department looking at the effect of free concession bus fares
said, "A significant switch from rail to bus was measured
by on train surveys on routes in the Lothians and Strathclyde
where bus was offered as a free fares alternative." This
switch was measured as between 19% and 66% on different lines,
averaging 46%.
In Wales a bus operator has started a commercial
bus service exactly mirroring the times of trains on the Conwy
Valley Line but offering free concession bus fares and abstracting
pensioner passengers from CVL. The council has told WAG that this
makes the line vulnerable to the bus service and is behind the
call for the extension of the scheme to CVL. This is the extreme
example of the unintended consequence of the free fares for bus
only policy threatening a local line. Other examples may be more
about the inability to meet CRDS targets without equality of modes
in concession fares.
In the Southwest one of the Community Rail pilots
is the Tamar Valley Line. Residents in West Devon Borough Council
have free bus travel from the Tavistock to Plymouth on 3 buses
per hour by their best public transport option but residents of
the Bere Peninsula are denied concession access to their best
link to Plymouth, the TVL. Pensioner/Disabled residents of Bere
Alston and Bere Ferres would have a 3 hour 30 minute return bus
trip via Tavistock to reach Plymouth against less than 1-hour
return by train. WDBC last year had £480k in the EPCS FSS
District tier of RSG for concession fares. They only spent £80k.
Their share of the extra £350m for the free scheme is £275k.
The underspend is likely to increase. Such underspend is not the
fault of WDBC, their area is lightly bussed and they pay for the
use level experienced. However, at the southern tip of their area
they do have a CR that they support in principle and they could
fund a concession extension to TVL. A proposal has been put to
them for a 20p flat fare that would cost £11k and add 4250
passengers to help achieve the challenging CRDS target of doubling
passengers. If Caradon (the Cornish section of TVL) also allowed
the extension up to 8% passengers could be added, more at free
fare.
However, WDBC have declined to extend the scheme
to TVL. It is therefore essential that the extension be at national
level to avoid damaging CRs. The detail and quantification of
the scheme put to WDBC for the TVL can be supplied on request.
JOINING UP MR DARLINGS THOUGHTS
When introducing the CRDS Mr Darling said that CRs
"couldn't be in the business of carting fresh air around
the country". When he introduced the free bus scheme and
the extension to a national scheme from 2008 he praised the extra
choice and freedom given to pensioners. The pensioners of the
Bere Peninsula cannot make the choice of a 1-hour return public
transport journey to Plymouth by train, using empty seats after
the AM Peak, rather than 3 hours 30 minutes by bus without paying
the full fare. Joining up Mr Darling's two thoughts would allow
free or low flat fare use of the empty train seats and equality
of freedom and choice of pensioners in different parts of West
Devon and GB.
FORMAT OF RAIL CONCESSION
The free bus scheme allows for extra costs to operators
of providing extra capacity if generated travel requires it. This
is an affordable sum. Extra capacity on rail is prohibitively
expensive. Any extension of concession fares to rail needs to
reflect this and have restrictions to limit use to when and where
empty seats are available. Hence only local lines and after the
AM Peak is likely to be sensible for this extension. For ease
of definition and to observe the effect the initial extension
of concession travel to local rail, it could be limited to Community
Railways after the AM Peak. The Scottish examples and some of
the English examples have a low flat fare rather than being free.
Again initial extension could be at a low flat fare to observe
the effect before moving to a free scheme.
TABLE
Concession Schemes that offer free or low flat
fare on fixed track modes of public transport
ENGLAND
London Local rail, Tube, DLR and Tram Free
West Midlands Local rail and Tram Free
Greater Manchester Local rail and Tram Free
South Yorkshire Local rail and Tram Free
Merseyside Local rail Free
Tyne & Wear Local rail 50p
flat fare
Metro Free with
£8 'Gold Card'
West Yorkshire Local rail 35p
flat fare
Nottingham City Tram Free
Nottinghamshire County Tram Free
but half fare 1600/1800
Blackpool Tram Free
Covers 45% of English population
SCOTLAND
Strathclyde Local rail and Glasgow Tube 40p
flat fare
Edinburgh Local rail 50p flat
fare
Covers 53% of Scottish population
NORTHERN IRELAND
Whole of province Local rail Free
Covers 100% of NI population
WALES
No schemes known to author but 110 people living
in the Dolwyddelan area can use their bus pass on the Conwy Valley
Line as, until recently, they had no daytime bus service.
Covers virtually 0% of population
UNITED KINGDOM
Covers 45% of UK population
NOTE: A number of Local Authorities offer a % discount
(often 50%) and others offer a discount
off the national Senior Citizen Railcard (£20)
that allows 33% discount. These savings are
small compared to free or low flat fare offers and
not comparable to free bus travel. They are
not recorded here.
Most schemes are after 0930 but some allow earlier
use
Local rail generally means internal
journeys, not on 'Intercity' services but some areas
allow cross boundary travel on 'Regional'
services
| 
