Reg Harman
BA FCILT FIHT FRSA MRTPI
Submission to House of Commons
Transport Committee
Bus services across the UK
Context - parallel trends
The Transport Act 1985, which established
the present structure of bus service provision, was aimed at freeing
up commercial initiatives to reinvigorate bus services, in the
face of a declining share of the travel market. In fact it has
effectively done nothing to stop decline in bus travel outside
London, contrasting with the growth in use that has been achieved,
albeit at a cost, within London. Introduction of the relevant
measures in the Transport Act 2000 have made little difference
to the generally downward trend.
Much of the current debate appears to
focus on simple issues (e.g. who should control services? What
priority measures would enhance reliability?). But provision of
bus services involves a number of factors in combination, provided
by several different bodies. All of these impact on the experiences
of people using buses. In consequence any attempt to regenerate
bus services has to address all these factors together.
This submission looks at these matters,
based on the writer's experience, and sets out some recommendations.
Bus policies in the Local Transport
Plan
In principle the Government appears
to remain convinced that bus services are crucial to achieving
more sustainable and integrated transport. Policies on bus development
have to feature in the Local Transport Plan (LTP), each local
transport authority is required to produce a bus strategy as part
of this, and the effects are to be measured through indicators
in the Annual Monitoring Statement. But this process does not
necessarily lead to positive bus development in practice, for
three main reaons:
- Often buses receive relatively little
real attention in the LTP. Coverage of bus services is also affected
by a serious lack of information on which to base action and monitoring.
So the bus features in the LTP as a desirable mode but not one
for which practical action can be defined and evaluated to any
great extent.
- Because many routes, including most
main ones, are commercially operated, information is usually kept
in confidence by operators; so local transport authority staff
have difficulty compiling adequate data to build and assess programmes
to meet their goals. (Gathering information by survey is possible,
but it requires substantial staff resources and agreement of operators
anyway.)
- Outside London, local transport
authorities have little real control over public transport. Their
practical powers enable them to fund services to run where commercial
operators do not provide them, organize joint tickets in certain
circumstances and publish area timetables. They can also fund
new local infrastructure, such as improvements to bus stations,
and provide road priorities for bus operation; but the funds they
have for these are generally very limited.
The LTP is meant to form a focus for
action by the relevant stakeholders, obviously including bus operators.
But it also includes other agencies, such as those managing land
highway provision and use development. However, even within unitary
authorities there can be serious divides in approach between different
services. Where the local transport authority is an English county
council, local planning falls into the hands of the district councils,
whose relationship may be more distant.
The Government's policies, including
those for bus services, aim to reduce congestion and pollution
and improve accessibility. These policies, repeated in Government
statements and set out in most LTPs, remain valid. But more serious
challenges have become very apparent over recent years:
- the onset of global warming, on
which the Government has set clear targets for reducing emissions,
and where transport forms a major element in using carbon fuels
- the likelihood that petroleum production
will peak soon, causing a rapid increase in petrol prices and
perhaps bringing limits on availability
- the poor condition of many urban
areas.
All of these will call for a much higher
quality of life, especially in urban areas, with reductions in
powered mobility and hence much more high quality public transport.
The bus has a major role to play in this (together with tramways
and local railways in major urban areas). Piecemeal improvements
are not enough; a step change in quality is essential to have
a real impact.
Using bus services outside London
In the middle of the twentieth century
most people used the bus to some extent. Today the bus caters
mostly for those without a car, i.e. dependent groups such as
the elderly, young people and those from poorer households. This
explains why bus provision is seen as so important in the Accessibility
Planning process: for example, the accessibility mapping at the
heart of this process uses access by bus services as a key factor.
The main purposes for bus travel today tend to be: shopping and
personal business in town centres, mostly by elderly people and
women; travel to and from schools and colleges; some work travel
(typically a very low proportion). Most bus travel is in urban
areas, where most people live. However, local politics in many
areas tend to place a greater emphasis on rural bus services,
because the isolation is more obvious.
Using the bus requires the passenger
to undertake a number of tasks, all of which can prove challenging
for usersose difficulties:
- Finding times for bus services can
prove difficult. Many users still rely heavily on printed material
but this is not always up-to-date; information at stops, where
available, can prove difficult to read in poor weather.
- Reaching the bus stop requires a
walk along footways which may be indirect and poorly planned,
and which can be narrow, badly maintained and squalid. It is sometimes
necessary to cross roads where there are no safe crossing points.
- Waiting conditions can be uncomfortable.
Most bus stop waiting areas are on pavements, which can be narrow,
bringing conflict with passing pedestrians. Sightlines to see
approaching buses are not always good.
- Boarding the bus is fine with a
low-floor vehicle pulling well in, but bus stopping places are
not infrequently blocked by illegal or careless parking.
- Buying a ticket and finding a comfortable
seat, on a moving bus, can prove unpleasant, especially for less
mobile people. Most travellers are familiar with the route they
use, but for those unfamiliar this can be a daunting task.
- There are usually worries about
the reliability of the bus and about safety.
Providing attractive and accessible
bus services has to address all aspects of using the bus that
passengers have to deal with. These are likely to prove challenging
to the more dependent groups who use bus services; they can also
deter potential users from more affluent and aware groups in society,
who are not familiar with travelling by bus. The sometimes wide
variation between types of bus facilities, especially ticketing,
across the country, reflecting the deregulated regime, may worsen
this (it contrasts with the standard practices and the common
'strippenkaart' in the Netherlands, for example). Thus it is important
to understand what the barriers are to provision of widely attractive
services.
Barriers to better bus services
There are several significant barriers
to better bus services. These reflect different aspects service
provision but their effects work in combination to hold back improvements.
Quality of life aspirations continue
to grow with the economy, so that people have more desire for
immediate access to goods and services. As part of this they also
have more complex travel patterns. Bus services which run at low
frequencies along set routes do not fit into this. The bus has
a generally negative image ("If you're still on a bus at
30, you're a failure"). Indeed the predominance of more dependent
people in its market emphasises that it is not a means of travel
for others. Consumer oriented marketing which patently ignores
this can prove counter-productive.
Bus operators work on generally tight
returns. This is perhaps not surprising for a service industry
that caters for those least able to pay for services. Managers
therefore have to change services as necessary to balance the
books. In this tight situation, they have little scope for expansive
development. Developing initiatives requires a lot of time from
managers and specialist support staff; but this is something that
is rarely available, as most bus companies are run on very slim
management structures.
Local transport authorities have relatively
limited powers, despite the Transport Act 2000. They also have
very limited funding compared to the real needs. Their major tool
in practice remains the ability to fund services which are not
run commercially, but this is constrained by the rules laid down
by guidance and court decisions. If an operator withdraws from
several commercial services at once, replacing them may require
a scale of funding which is well outside the authority's budget.
Funding for additional services is usually therefore very limited.
Bus timetables and ticketing are mostly
fragmented. Services do not usually operate as a network with
good interchange between them; good links with local rail services
are also often lacking. Yet this would in principle be more effective
for many passengers, offer a rather more attractive option for
more complex journeys, and probably lead to a more efficient use
of resources in local public transport. (It is the norm in most
local public transport systems on the European mainland.) Ironically
the large operating groups developed over the last decade have
come to appreciate the benefits from cooperation, with each other
and with local transport authorities. However, they are barred
by the Office for Fair Trading's tight application of Competition
Act rules. Given that bus services cater for such a small part
of the local travel market, this seems nonsensical.
Bus operations are often perceived as
unreliable. Sometimes this is pure perception: in some cases passengers
do not understand the timetable; and a lot of non-users rationalise
their feeling that 'the bus is not for them' by claiming they
cannot rely on it. But there is a lot of actual unreliability
in bus service operation. This reflects various causes:
- traffic congestion, which often
varies by time and place, and is worsening with growth in traffic
levels
- delays in boarding through the selling
and checking of tickets by bus drivers (typically this amounts
to around 12 seconds per passenger)
- illegal or careless parking, often
with little attempt by parking control staff to give buses any
priority
- poor driving and loose management
(this is not excusable, but it is understandable where the operating
regime is so difficult).
Some of the problems with reliability
can be overcome by provision of bus priorities. But these are
not always easy to implement, even though most LTPs have positive
words about priorities to improve bus services. Projects to install
them often bring objections from local people to the proposed
measures, raising concerns over increased congestion, the effects
on safety, the impact on property prices, and the waste of public
money to support commercial activities by profit-making bus companies.
Objectors are likely to be mostly car-owners who do not envisage
themselves travelling by bus.
Land use (spatial) planning does not
favour buses. A study reported to a conference on integration
in 2005 [1] showed that
(on a national basis):
- of new housing built between 1999
and 2004, 78% could not be served effectively by commercial services
(i.e. those on the main corridors) and 19% could not be served
at all
- only 8% of new commercial developments
are within walking distance (400 metres) of frequent bus services,
but 94% of them provide parking for 'all' or 'virtually all' employees
- only 14% of out-of-town shops are
served by frequent services (and 7 out of 8 shoppers come by car)
- over 95% of s106 contributions to
local planning authorities are spent on highways
Regenerating bus services
To regenerate bus services in the face
of these complex and substantial barriers requires a combination
of measures designed to address all aspects of travel. The more
common approach, providing individual measures for a service or
group of services, rarely proves very effective. Only through
a comprehensive approach can bus services become an effective
travel mode for most people, in line with the Government's aims.
This means a complete package of measures, implemented together.
These are likely to include:
- simplification of core routes for
each area and corridor
- coordinated planning for all other
services as part of the local network
- fully integrated ticketing and fares
- installation of bus priorities at
congestion and delay points
- upgrading bus stops and shelters
for better comfort and security
- removal of all speed humps (replaced
by other controls)
- strict enforcement of parking, especially
at stops
- comprehensive and accessible information
for users, including at-stop information panels
- use of high quality low-floor buses
These could all be pulled together through
establishment of an area control centre, to manage operations
and provide information. This would be based on the use of information
technology, with all buses fitted with Automatic Vehicle Location
through GPS.
To do this however requires the whole-hearted
involvement of a number of key stakeholders. Typically these should
include:
- the local transport authority
- the main area bus operator
- other bus operators
- local planning and highway authorities
- community groups
- commercial interests
To prove effective, such cooperative
involvement requires sound and honest agreements over who will
do what, when they will do it, and what they will pay. The main
current tool is a non-statutory Quality Bus Partnership, based
on an informal agreement. This can be quite effective: much can
be done with cooperation and commitment, supported by a sound
evidence base. But it does call for firm leadership and mutual
understanding, especially between the local transport authority
and the main bus company. Even so, under the present regime there
are limits on what can be achieved. The major constraint probably
lies in the very tight and narrowly focused control exercised
by the Office for Fair Trading. But other factors also limit opportunities:
links with the form of land use development remain non-existent,
the responsibilities for public transport and for of highways
and footways are often divided, and debate between those concerned
tends to focus on forms of control (regulation) rather on real
partnership and strategic issues
Cutting through the complexities of
current structures and regulations, effective bus provision requires
three main components:
- a clear strategy for bus service
development, including provision of infrastructure, vehicles and
facilities, as part of a local transport strategy, linked to area
spatial (land use) plans
- adequate resources, in terms of
manpower and funding
- good partnership between the main
players, especially the local transport authority and the main
bus companies, with strong leadership
This should produce a cohesive vision
of the needs and the resources, aimed at all parties making the
best use of opportunities.
Recommendations for change: the three
key elements
The current regime does not make for
easy progress. When there is often distrust between the main stakeholders,
opposition to priority measures from among many community groups
(most of whom do not use buses), and a serious lack of resources,
the constraints imposed can make it almost impossible to achieve
the necessary step change. In order to tackle this, it is essential
that the boundaries be pushed back, to allow much greater freedom
to make progress for those authorities and companies involved.
In principle this might include four key changes to national policy.
First, remove the Competition Act constraints
applied by the Office for fair Trading to cooperation between
operators in relation to local transport. This should allow freedom
for operators to cooperate with each other. It would also bring
freedom for local transport authorities to cooperate more closely
with operators. This would enable real partnerships to be formed,
within which adequate information and statistics could be shared
and schemes could be developed, promoted and implemented.
Second, provide local transport authorities
with real powers for integrating public transport services. These
must include powers over timetables, ticketing, interchanges between
modes, and highway priorities. Under these powers they would be
able to define strategies and implement them. This must involve
strong coordination of transport and bus strategies with land
use planning. Even more important, it must be done in close cooperation
with operators, who have very substantial knowledge of the field
and who remain responsible for actually running services. The
benefits of this strongly cooperative approach are visible in
the process under which French conurbation authorities let an
area franchise for a medium period to a major operator; the franchisee
works closely with the authority as a partner in developing the
network.
Third, it is important that much larger
funding be made available for local transport provision. This
will enable public transport to receive ample investment, without
which the step change is impossible. It will also enable revenue
support to be made available for the many non-commercial services
which are bound to be needed. High levels of support funding are
part of the London strategy. They are also common in most cities
of mainland Europe, where the benefits of a high quality public
transport system are identified through evaluation on a much wider
basis, set against improvements to accessibility, which brings
economic and social gains, and to environmental quality.
Fourthly, it is essential that the development
of bus services be coordinated with the location and design of
new developments and also with highway and footway development.
As discussed, this is intended in principle but does not happen
in practice. It is essential that the professional staff involved
be given a proper understanding of the relationships and opportunities;
this should hold a higher place in professional education and
development courses for people working in public transport, highways
and especially land use planning.
Reg Harman
23 May 2006
1 Huntley, P (2005) 'Integration
- what does it really mean?' Proceedings of Information &
Interchange conference - London, 28/6/200 Back
|
