Transport Committee Inquiry Bus Services Across
the UK
My name is Ray Wilkes, and I am chair of T2000 WY
Bus Group, Chair of Keighley Bus Users Group, a member of Harrogate
Bus Users Group and a member of Bus Users UK, formerly National
Federation of Bus Users. I am the Co-ordinator for Yorkshire &
Humberside Transport Roundtable. I attended the Oxford Bus Conference
2003, York Excellence in Transport Conference 2004 and many presentations
on bus policy including that of Cambridge. I read the transport
press and study the annual reports of the main bus broups.
My wife and I are lifelong users of public transport
for work, shopping and leisure. By choice we do not drive. We
are keen walkers and travellers and this gives us experience of
nationwide bus and train services which complements our knowledge
of transport issues in the West Yorkshire Conurbation.
Introduction. In the Press
Notice it is stated "Despite the Government's emphasis on
buses being a major part of an integrated transport policy since
1997, bus usage outside London has continued to decline".
This oft repeated statement is true only as an average. However,
there are many urban areas where buses are undergoing a dramatic
revival in quality, frequency and patronage growth. These include
established pro-bus towns like Brighton, Oxford, Nottingham, Edinburgh,
Cardiff and Glasgow.
The list also includes recent converts to pro-bus
policies: Cambridge, York, Blackpool, Peterborough, Exeter, along
with some exceptional bus companies in Harrogate and Burnley &
Pendle (Transdev Blazefield). Other towns seeing a significant
turnaround in bus patronage include: Hull, Lancaster & Morecambe,
Cwmbran, Bedford, Basingstoke, Colchester, Weston Super Mare,
Telford, Swindon, Warrington, Crawley, Kidderminster, Bristol/Bath,
Swansea, Maidstone, Thanet and Canterbury, Winchester, Neath,
Norwich, Dundee, Aberdeen and Stoke on Trent. There are reasons
to believe that Torbay, Derby, Leicester and other places will
join this list soon.
¾ These
are places where patronage is growing and congestion is being
addressed. There is every reason to believe that within a decade
most of these places will be where Brighton and Oxford are now,
while Brighton and Oxford will be even further ahead.
Bus companies are learning how to turn themselves
from boring utilities to fashionable travel. They mostly have
a long way to go, but it is now clear that bus companies know
what they have to do.
It is worth noting that at the time of the last
Select Committee report only a handful of real success stories
could be highlighted.
Before answering the particular questions asked by
the Transport Committee I would like to examine in some detail
important background issues so that it will be possible to identify
why some areas are experiencing a bus renaissance while others
seem to be in terminal decline:
¾ Congestion
and bus productivity.
¾ Bus
priority.
¾ Demand
management.
Congestion and bus productivity. For
a given frequency of service, in areas of high congestion, more
buses are needed. This puts up costs. High congestion slows journeys
and reduces or destroys reliability. This reduces patronage. The
outcome is that the bus company has to reduce frequencies or pass
on fare increase to a dwindling band of customers, some of whom
will then travel by car making congestion worse. There is a vicious
circle of decline. We will look at two Bradford routes in detail.
On Blazefield's 'Keighley & District' service
662 Keighley-Bradford, a high frequency route with luxury leather-seated
buses, three extra buses (at £300 per bus per day) have been
put into the route. That is nearly £1000 per day, or £250,000
p.a. to cope with congestion: money which could be invested for
other customer benefits if buses had a clear run.
Almost every Overground route (First Group high frequency
services in West Yorkshire) will be carrying an overhead of one,
two or three extra buses for congestion.
This is a colossal drain of money, upwards of £10m
p.a., which could be used to meet customer aspirations if congestion
was tackled. In addition, the delays and uncertainty caused by
congestion create customer resistance to bus use, and there is
therefore a loss of fare income which might be 50% of current
revenue.
While these sums may seem 'small beer' compared with
total transport expenditure, a very significant improvement could
be made to the attractiveness, utility and marketing of bus services
by the productivity gains from reduced congestion.
Where companies put in extra time for congestion,
this leads to unacceptable journey times. On 'Keighley & District'
service 760, Keighley-Leeds, the off peak daytime allowance of
46 minutes from Leeds to Shipley is extended to 69 minutes in
the evening peak, 17.10 journey, and 61 minutes for the 17.40
journey. As well as the extra time customers have to endure when
they may wish to get home quickly to their evening meal and loved
ones, the extra vehicle resources required for this extra running
time could be used instead to increase frequency in sensible traffic
conditions. Recently further adjustments have been made to counter
congestion and now the service is no longer at regular times throughout
the day.
At present the temptation to use a car and rat run
instead of using impeded buses would be very strong, and may account
for some of the resistance to modal shift to bus.
The operator once had aspirations to raise the 760
frequency to every 20 minutes, but this has had to be abandoned
as congestion has corroded productivity.
Where services are not financially strong enough
to allow the maintenance of frequency by the introduction of extra
vehicles, the frequency has to be dropped, 10 minutes to 15 minutes,
15 to 30 etc. Weaker services will be cut entirely or evening
and Sunday services will be cut to make ends meet.
In addition, the heavy levels of congestion make
services unreliable. A 15 minute journey may take 15 minutes one
day and 45 minutes at the same time a week later. Unreliability
is unacceptable to customers, it contributes to declining patronage
and works against patronage growth.
¾ In
high levels of congestion, it is inevitable that bus services
will be unreliable and expensive and that bus networks and patronage
will inevitably decline.
Having examined the disastrous effect of congestion
on bus services, it must be emphasised that all road users: freight
vehicles, people travelling to business appointments, health visitors,
to name but a few of the many categories of road user, suffer
the same expensive and corrosive effects on productivity. Yet
freeing up routes for buses would also help every other road user
by encouraging modal switch.
Some bus industry critics say the delays are caused
by inefficient fares collection. One way bus companies are trying
to cut down on boarding times is by raising cash fares at a faster
rate than prepaid tickets. It would be useful if when they did
so local councils were supportive rather than encouraging the
media to focus entirely on the cash fare increases. In Brighton,
where there is excellent informal partnership, only 40% of fares
are cash. While in London this figure is 20%, which is even better
for bus productivity, according to a recent Independent article
(14th Feb 2006), in London fraudulent travel is too
easy. Quite reasonably bus companies want to be sure that fare
systems elsewhere are fraud resistant.
In high levels of congestion, customers are unwilling
to buy season tickets as it may turn out on a particular day to
be quicker to walk, seek a lift, or use a taxi. Therefore, congestion
indirectly exacerbates other problems. It accelerates staff turnover,
because drivers find the work demoralising when they are often
late and have to face customer dissatisfaction much the time.
Staff turnover is a major cost for bus companies as new drivers
need at least five to six weeks training.
Bus industry critics also say that bus companies
put profits before public service. Bus companies are legally private
businesses who have stringent obligations to their customers,
staff and creditors.
Shareholders are creditors who offer very competitive
loans in the hope that the business, and hence the share value,
will grow. This growth is something that policy makers and environmentalists
are hoping for in the case of bus businesses. Dividends are around
4%, similar to other FTSE companies.
The 15-20% margins often referred to are not dividends
but operating margins which have to pay for investment, corporation
tax, dividends and other charges. The higher these margins, the
more the bus company can invest for the future. This is something
that visionary councils like Cambridge use to their advantage
as they can persuade the bus companies to invest in infrastructure.
Where congestion destroys profitability, bus companies
are legally obliged to manage the decline in such a way that they
can still meet obligations to their staff and creditors. Sadly,
usually this means cuts in frequencies, services and fares increases.
Bus Priority. Many cities
have introduced bus priority measures but either do not enforce
them or allow pinch points to remain. Where bus stop clearways
either do not exist or are not enforced, passenger loading is
delayed while the bus has to occupy the traffic lane instead of
the bus stop area. This delays all traffic, and on high frequency
services the next bus is also delayed. Disabled, elderly, people
with pushchairs, and heavily laden passengers are all seriously
inconvenienced and may have to choose a car or taxi instead. Some
local authorities put in expensive but ineffective measures and
then blame the bus companies when patronage continues to fall.
¾ Bus
priority measures and bus stop clearways must be fit for purpose
and properly enforced.
Demand Management. Not
even Los Angeles can meet peak-time travel demand. What chance
have our cities if there is a traffic free for all? In the long-term
some form of road pricing which leaves motorists better off if
they choose to leave the car at home is essential. In the meantime,
it should be recognised that city centre land is a very expensive
resource and that parking charges should reflect the full costs.
City centre parking should be prioritised for shoppers and short
stay visitors. Commuters should be encouraged to use high quality
Park and Ride. If buses can keep time in the commuter peaks they
are likely to be able to provide an attractive service to shoppers
and visitors. The evidence from existing Park and Ride cities
is compelling. Car parks must be attractive and secure so that
people perceive the charge as a service charge rather than a rip
off.
¾ In
all the areas of bus renaissance, all of these measures are being
successfully progressed, although in all cases there is still
some way to go.
What else is needed?
Bus companies must run a tight ship, providing attractively
marketed clean and attractive bus services. However, in conditions
of good traffic flow it is a commercial imperative to ensure that
customers have every reason to be loyal, as these conditions are
ideal for competitors, actual or potential, to take a share or
all of the market. The evidence from Oxford is that competition
greatly benefits customers.
Local authorities should ensure that bus stops and
bus stations have a modern and comfortable ambience.
The committee's questions addressed.
Has deregulation worked? Are services better,
more frequent, meeting passenger need? Are bus services sufficiently
co-ordinated with other forms of public transport; are buses clean,
safe, efficient?
The answer is clear: that in good bus operating conditions,
deregulation has provided excellent service and a growing army
of loyal customers. It should be noted that the London regulated
system also works, and that it has a very strong network of red
routes (bus priorities) and strong demand management, parking
controls, and the congestion charge.
If not, can deregulation be made to work?
Neither the regulated nor the deregulated system
can work unless the buses can operate in free flowing traffic.
Both work in free flowing traffic.
Is statutory regulation compromising the provision
of high quality bus services?
OFT rulings appears to deter cooperation on frequencies
and fares between bus companies where such cooperation would help
customers. For instance, although the competition in Oxford has
led to an excellent service for customers, it is likely that some
collaboration would bring even more benefits. The OFT appears
to be an expensive overhead for bus companies.
Are priority measures having a beneficial effect?
Bus priority measures, where they are fit for purpose
and enforced, allow reliability and high bus productivity which
are essential for bus success.
What is best practice?
This is still being evolved to suit local needs.
However, York and Cambridge demonstrate good practice.
Is financing and funding for local community
services sufficient and targeted in the right way?
No. There is no long-term commitment. Services are
often abandoned due to cessation of grants just when success appears
to be around the corner.
Concessionary fares - what are the problems
with the current approach? Does the Government's proposal to introduce
free local bus travel across the UK for disabled people and the
over 60s from 2008 stand up to scrutiny? Should there be a nationwide
version of London's Freedom Pass - giving free or discounted travel
on all forms of public transport?
Free fares will reduce car use and congestion but
road user charging may be a cheaper way of doing this. There should
be concessionary fares, say half fares for young people up to
25, as a road safety measure. However, all schemes should be designed
to incentivise operators to carry more passengers.
Why are there no Quality Contracts?
Largely because they would be very expensive and
the DTp has probably sensed that the Oxford type system offers
a more affordable alternative for most of Britain.
However, circumstances can be envisaged where regulation
might be better than deregulation.
¾ In
deep rural areas a quality contract might be the best way of providing
networks like North York Moors National Park 'Moorbus' which is
currently provided by tendering. Something like the 'Moorsbus'
is needed in all National Parks and a QC might be the best way
of achieving this. At present National Parks suffer intense loss
of amenity from heavy visitor traffic, yet much of the population
is excluded from the Parks by the lack of bus services. Rural
services would be more economically sustainable if there was an
imaginative policy of encouraging visitors by bus.
¾ In
small towns and cities like Ripon it may not be possible to provide
the required quality and frequency to reduce car dependency on
a commercial basis and here a QC may be appropriate.
¾ In
the future urban and city networks may need to run on electricity
(trolley buses or LRT) to reduce CO2 emissions and to reduce oil
dependency and improve diversity of supply. This may need a different
kind of regulation to any envisaged at present. Finding a way
of making Transport for London leaner and more cost effective
may be a good preparation for this eventuality.
Are the powers of the Traffic Commissioners
relevant; are they adequately deploying the powers and resources
that they currently have?
The Traffic Commissioners enforce a '6 minute
rule' on reliability. This is tougher than the 10 minute rule
for train operators who operate in a much more controlled and
predictable environment. There are no 'void days' for bus operators.
In some ways the rule has been useful in encouraging reliability
through realistic timetables. However, because of congestion,
this has often led to unfortunate side effects. These include:
less efficient use of vehicles and staff, splitting of through
services, reduced frequencies, irregular frequencies, slower journeys
and 'waiting for time'. Traffic Commissioners could help bus users
and all road users by enforcing higher standards by freight operators
which too often park at bus stops or break down or crash on bus
routes. Traffic Commissioners should have powers to fine local
authorities who do not keep bus routes fit for purpose.
We are concerned that 'low cost ' operators can undermine
quality operators, in a way that may harm customers or destabilise
bus networks, by running at peak times only or unfairly winning
LA contracts for off peak services. Operators should have to show
they are financially sound, have fit for purpose depots and maintenance
facilities. New services which are in competition with existing
ones should be required to use vehicles of a similar age and quality
to the existing operator.
The Traffic Commissioners hearings appear to be an
expensive overhead for bus companies.
Do they have enough support from Government and
local authorities?
We are not in a position to answer this question.
Is London a sound model for the rest of
the UK?
From the available evidence, Oxford and Brighton
are better models. London is an exceptional area, and almost everyone
was using public transport before the congestion charge, which
got rid of a small percentage of car traffic which then freed
up the roads for buses.
What is the future for the bus? Using best
practice, buses could be the mainstay of transport around the
country except in deep rural areas.
Should metropolitan areas outside London be able
to develop their own form of regulated competition?
No. If Nottingham and Edinburgh can make deregulation
work, so can the metropolitan districts.
¾ The
PTEs say they can operate a deregulated system more cheaply than
London. If this is true they should be seconded to TfL to sort
out their spiralling and unsustainable bus support costs.
Would this boost passenger numbers?
If not, what would? Free flowing bus corridors and demand
management are the only way to boost passenger numbers in both
regulated and deregulated regimes.
Does the bus have a future?
Buses clearly have a future in the cities and towns quoted at
the beginning of this submission. They also clearly have a future
in rural areas like Lincolnshire and Norfolk where the LA has
been as visionary as those of Oxford and Cambridge etc.
¾ Visionary
authorities use public support for kick-start schemes rather than
long term support.
In addressing rural railways, the Secretary of State
has said that we "cannot be in the business of carting fresh
air around the country"; is the same true for buses?
There is no point in carting fresh air around the
country. However, it should be remembered that a heavily laden
bus may have to return empty or be empty on sections of route.
Buses should be a popular form of mass transport
for all social classes.
Buses are not a form of ambulance or door to door
transport for the less abled, although they can often fulfil this
role as part of their main role. They are not part of the social
security system but where buses are successful they reduce social
exclusion.
¾
The bus industry needs intelligence, vision, understanding and
pragmatism more than it needs public money.
However, public money is needed to make our roads
safe and fit for purpose. A congested road is of little utility
and is a waste of an important public resource.
Bus friendly cities are good for cycling and walking.
The established bus friendly cities and many of the new ones have
high shares of active travel (cycling and walking). A quarter
of journeys are under two miles and in the bus friendly places
the active travel share is typically 25%, which is good for congestion,
air pollution and health. Cycling and walking are powered by solar
energy in food! Cycling and walking cannot co-exist with high
traffic density. Improved health would be a serious and valuable
spin-off from a good bus policy.
I am told by officers and councillors in Bradford
that West Yorkshire is too hilly for active travel. My hobby is
hiking and I have walked all over the mainland UK. There are more
cyclists and walkers in the Lake District and the Pennines than
there are in the Fens! Bradford is the custodian of the Saltaire
World Heritage Site. It allows residents to park on the historic
stone pavements consequently everyone, including elderly, those
with push chairs etc are seriously disadvantaged. This is why
active travel is rare in Bradford. The car, especially the badly
driven car, is king in Bradford, our roads are congested, our
air polluted, and we have the worst heart disease rate in Europe.
It is similar in Leeds.
If Oxford, Cambridge and Brighton represent the future
of urban transport and quality of life, Leeds and Bradford represent
a dystopian nightmare.
Conclusions.
¾ Britain
needs its buses and bus provision needs imagination and vision.
Buses can only be attractive and economically viable in free flowing
traffic. However, in the right conditions buses can reduce congestion,
air pollution, road casualties making urban areas more attractive.
¾ The
OFT and Traffic Commissioners should be changed so they are more
supportive of the bus industry, while ensuring good safety standards
and good practice. A non-confrontational approach is needed. Traffic
Commissioners should have powers to ensure that bus routes are
free flowing.
¾ The
local authorities' role should be to make sure roads are safe,
pfit for purpose and free flowing; ensure new developments are
bus friendly; ensure bus stations, interchanges and bus stops
are excellent and user friendly. A more pro-active role for local
authorities in rural areas and for National Park/AONB leisure
services is desirable.
¾ Active
travel is complementary to a good bus policy and demand management.
Active travel is a key component of good health.
¾ In
high levels of congestion buses will become more expensive, patronage
will fall and networks will be unstable and liable to cuts.
¾ Where
traffic is free flowing, buses can compete with private transport
on quality and convenience.
¾ Buses
are for all social classes and any necessary regulation should
not get in the way of a direct good relationship between bus companies
and their customers.
22 May 2006
| 
