APPENDIX 24
Memorandum submitted by The Transport
& Health Study Group
ABOUT THSG
The Transport & Health Study Group is the
principal public health organisation in the transport field. It
is an independent voluntary scientific society although it has
an arrangement with the Dept of Health to organise an NHS network
of professionals working in the transport and health field.
A HEALTHY TRANSPORT
SYSTEM
THSG believes that a healthy transport system
would be one where cars were used less, with cycles and walking
substituting for them on short journeys and public transport substituting
for them on longer journeys.
Although this enquiry is about buses we do not
believe that the bus system should be looked at in isolation from
the rail system. European evidence suggests that there is more
use of buses in cities with rail-based public transport systems
than in cities without. Trains and trams seem to be particularly
effective in attracting people onto public transport and they
then use buses as well. The contrast in bus usage between London
and the rest of the country fits that picture. Had we been permitted
longer evidence we would have added an appendix addressing this
issue of developing buses and local rail services to complement
each other.
When people buy a car they acquire a mode of
transport which will take them wherever they want to go whenever
they want to do so. Public transport does not have this characteristic.
People do not feel they have the opportunity to use public transport
to go wherever they want and evening services are often poor.
We believe there is a need to develop a public transport network
which does exactly this.
You have asked specifically for comments on
the idea that "we don't pay transport operators to haul fresh
air" and you ask whether this should be applicable to buses
as well as trains. We do not believe it should be applicable to
either. The mainstay of this evidence is to argue the case for
abandoning that thinking, which has been the mainstay of transport
policy in this country for half a century and return to an older
way of thinking which aimed to create networks.
In order to develop a comprehensive public transport
system:
— Orbital routes should be developed.
— A network should be developed rather
than simply a set of individual routes.
— Quality bus corridors should be established
particularly in urban/ congested areas.
— Bus priority should be introduced
more vigorously in urban/ congested areas.
— Demand Responsive transport services
are developed where appropriate.
— Regulation of the network is needed.
ORBITAL ROUTES
SHOULD BE
DEVELOPED
Currently most public transport services run
along radial routes into city/town centres. We now live however
in a society where there is a much more disseminated land use
pattern with out of town industrial estates and shopping centres.
In Greater Manchester for example just over half of the car journeys
in the conurbation are non-radial journeys over five miles. To
concede such journeys to the car is to concede defeat.
It is for this reason that we have long advocated
orbital public transport services of high frequency and reliability.
A NETWORK SHOULD
BE DEVELOPED
RATHER THAN
SIMPLY A
SET OF
INDIVIDUAL ROUTES
We believe there is a need to develop a public
transport network including:
— A high speed intercity and interurban
rail service (with some bus links where reinstatement of railways
is not practicable).
— A high quality local express network
of Metro frequency local rail services, tram services and linked
high quality limited stop bus services provide a nationwide network
of both radial and orbital routes taking people from within a
kilometre of their origin in urban areas (a little more in rural
areas) to within a kilometre of their destination in urban areas
(a little more in rural areas) for almost any journey.
— A comprehensive bus network providing,
in urban areas, a finer meshed but inevitably slower network for
those who have not yet been persuaded to walk quite as far. In
rural areas a variety of demand-responsive services could provide
similar services.
— A nationwide door to door service
for those who, either because of their own impairment or because
they are encumbered with heavy luggage, are unable to make their
way to the bus stop.
— In rural areas a system of demand-responsive
services may fulfil the role of all three of the last three of
the above networks.
The Mathematical Case for a Comprehensive Public
Transport Network
1. Pigou's Theorem postulated an uncongested
road with plenty of spare capacity (it was developed in the 1920s!)but
slow traffic speeds due to poor surfaces, bends etc and a parallel
faster road of limited capacity. It pointed out that traffic would
use the faster road until congestion led to the speed on that
road being such that there was no advantage either way. At that
point the two roads would be equally inconvenient. If a toll were
then applied to the potentially faster but congested road this
would shift enough traffic to the other road for the speed to
increase to a point where it was worth paying for. Those who used
the older road would be no worse off but those who used the toll
road would be better off.
2. Downs applied Pigou's Theorem to the
competition between the private car and the public transport system.
People will choose the car until congestion lowers the speed to
the point at which public transport is equally attractive. It
follows that the speed of traffic will be determined by the quality
of the competing public transport system, and that the only way
to improve traffic speeds is to improve public transport. This
is called the Downs-Thomson Paradox as it leads to the conclusion
that investment in public transport will do more to improve traffic
speeds than investment in roads. In the 1980s Mogridge produced
evidence of a relationship between traffic speeds in London and
the speed of rail services in London, thus bearing out the prediction
of the Downs-Thomson Paradox.
3. Increasingly today people do not make
most of their journeys along the radial routes that public transport
has traditionally served. A more diffuse pattern of land use requires
a more diffuse pattern of transport. This means that for a large
number of users the perceived utility of the public transport
system will not be seen as its capacity to carry them into the
city centre—it will be perceived as its capacity to take
them where they actually want to go.
4. The utility of a network is proportional
to the square of its size.
5. It follows that trimming the marginal
services of a public transport system will have a disproportionate
effect on its utility and therefore a disproportionate effect
on its usage and on the consequential mathematically-inevitable
consequences for traffic speeds.
The Common Sense Case for a Comprehensive Public
Transport Network
1. Imagine a country pub where the last
bus passes at 8.45 pm. At 9 pm most people in it could have come
by bus but hardly any will have done so. This is not because people
have such a strong preference for using their car that they will
constrain their drinking (or alternatively risk their lives) in
order to drive to the pub. It is because there isn't a bus back.
2. Often the last bus on a bus route is
little used because people don't cut things so fine. The next
to the last bus is full. The last bus isn't useless—it is
giving people the confidence to use the next to the last bus.
Take it off (we don't pay people to haul fresh air) and the new
last bus will start to be little used. And so on.
3. It will be recalled how the Serpell Report
suggested closing the railway beyond Crianlarich, a tiny hamlet
in the wilds of Scotland that happened to be the point at which
the Oban and Fort William lines diverge. Up until that point the
railway carried both the Oban and Fort William trains and was
profitable. After Crianlarich each line carried only one of the
services and wasn't. But people travelling to Oban and Fort William
will not take the train to Crianlarich and then arrange onward
journeys—they will drive.
5. People won't take a bus or train to work
if there were no bus or train back?
6. At first sight the Downs-Thompson application
of Pigou's Theorem is falsified by the existence of heavily congested
roads parallel to good quality but underused rail services. However
many of the drivers on such routes are not travelling to the same
destination as the railway and they will often give their reason
for not using it as the lack of effective links from the train
to their destination.
7. Many people find it difficult to understand
the mathematical relationship documented by Downs-Thomson and
Mogridge unless they can actually think of specific people making
specific changes in their journey habits. But the situation is
more complex than that. If you are willing to make a 45 minute
journey to work then, with uncongested roads travelling at, say,
80 mph you could live 60 miles away. So the suburbs of Sheffield
could be in Leicester. The suburbs of Manchester could be in Lichfield.
The suburbs of Birmingham could be in Macclesfield. That is the
measure of the potential demand which only congestion suppresses.
IN ANSWER
TO THE
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
OF THE
ENQUIRY
Has deregulation worked?
Bus deregulation is an experiment that has failed
with disastrous consequences. Bus usage in those areas of England
where deregulation has been applied has declined steadily until
the last few years when it has increased slightly, but less than
competing modes.
In contrast in London, where bus deregulation
was not applied, bus usage grown strongly and steadily.
Deregulation is not compatible with the kind
of planned network that we call for.
Are services better, more frequent, meeting passenger
need?
The answer depends on where you live. If you
are fortunate to live on a profitable radial route serving a dense
population then it could be argued by some that services have
improved or are no worse than before deregulation. On such routes
more than one operator may run and there will frequent buses competing
for your custom often on price.
However even if you live on a profitable route,
unless vigorous bus priority measures have been implemented it
is very likely that traffic congestion will have cancelled out
any benefits from competition. Time of journey is a very important
consideration of the public. If the bus does not provide a time
efficient journey compared to the private car they will naturally
use the car further adding to congestion.
If you live in rural areas or in less populated
surburbs then services have worsened considerably and in many
cases have been withdrawn altogether. The same is true of evening
services.
Deregulation has resulted in instability and
unpredictability of many services. This has resulted in the public
losing faith in the services. This leads to a further decline
in patronage with more services being withdrawn because they are
no longer profitable.
Our view is that bus services are not on the
whole meeting the needs of the public. Deregulation has made it
impossible for a comprehensive and integrated public transport
network to be developed. Costs of bus fares have risen faster
than the costs of motoring and walk on single fares are high discouraging
occasional use of buses. Deregulation has meant bus wars on some
routes with operators flooding the route (for eg 192 bus route
Hazel Grove-Manchester) with too many buses "carting around
fresh air" that could be more usefully deployed elsewhere.
Ironically this fresh air is being carted around not in meeting
additional needs on branches of the network or in ensuring that
evening services run for as long as they are needed (which we
would support) but in pointless competition.
Are bus services sufficiently co-ordinated with
other forms of public transport; are buses clean, safe, efficient?
If not, can deregulation be made to work? How?
Bus services are not sufficiently co-ordinated
with other forms of public transport. Current legislation means
that private operators are not obligated to run services where
do not wish them to go despite the needs of the customers. Profitability
is the main objective of the bus companies not co-operating with
others to form a co-ordinated integrated network.
The limited stop buses that we advocate as part
of a local express network will need to link to trains and trams.
Are buses clean, safe, efficient?
Quality varies considerably. Although quality
of vehicles is slowly improving as new emission standards come
in to play, we would argue that standards have not improved quickly
enough. 46% of the buses running in Greater Manchester would not
be allowed by Transport for London to run on public services in
London. Many of these buses will run on corridors which suffer
from poor air quality.
Can deregulation be made to work? How?
We do not believe that deregulation can be made
to work. There are no examples elsewhere in the world that suggest
a deregulated public transport systems benefits the public as
a whole or can deliver a high quality integrated comprehensive
public transport network. We have outlined the mathematics which
demonstrates this. Without comprehensive road pricing there is
no basis for a market to operate. We suggest that the regulated
regime that is allowed to operate in London be introduced in the
rest of the UK as a matter of urgency.
Is statutory regulation compromising the provision
of high quality bus services?
We view this as to be strange question. In London
where there is regulation bus passengers appear to be satisfied
with bus services as evidenced by the rise in usage.
The mathematics which we have outlined would
suggest that statutory regulation is essential for this market
to work—it is a classic "Tragedy of the Commons"
situation where individual choices interact, because of limited
resource (in this case road space) to the situation that nobody
wants.
Are priority measures having a beneficial effect?
Priority benefits do have a beneficial effect.
Not only do they increase bus speeds considerably but, as Pigou's
Theorem would predict, they also speed traffic generally.
Bus priority measures have been too timidly
pursued due to political considerations and a perception that
transferring road space from the car will worsen congestion.
We believe that this is a fundamentally misplaced
view.
In a saturated road system there is enough suppressed
demand to fill any road space. What limits congestion is the trade
off in which people decide not to travel, or decide to change
the time of their travel, or decide to move nearer their work,
in response to levels of congestion that they find even more unacceptable
than the alternative.
What will alter this trade off point is the
creation of better alternatives so that the trade off occurs at
a higher speed because people leave their car at home and take
the bus or train at a higher speed than the speed at which they
would have decided not to travel at all.
It is important that the above statement is
not misunderstood. We are not suggesting that short lengths of
bus priority will significantly alter equilibrium congestion speed.
Long lengths of bus priority along specified corridors may slightly
raise equilibrium congestion speed if the Edinburgh experience
is generalisable but will not do so to such an extent as to appear
a dramatic solution to the problem, any more than other public
transport developments along a single corridor will. The reason
for this is that many of the vehicles who use the corridors will
be making journeys which start or finish away from it and for
such vehicles the trade off is not altered. Moreover there will
be enough latent demand amongst people wishing to make such uses
to fill the road space vacated by those corridor users who make
a modal shift. It is the creation of a comprehensive network that
we believe will raise equilibrium congestion speed. Bus priority
is essential to create the limited stop services that are an essential
part of such a network.
What is Best Practice?
London is the only UK example of a planned network
of the kind we advocate.
Edinburgh is the only UK example of bus priority
being introduced sufficiently comprehensively to speed general
traffic in line with Pigou's Theorem (since the introduction of
bus priority car journey times from the Forth Bridge to the centre
of Edinburgh have become faster, despite the loss of road space).
Is financing and funding for local community services
sufficient and targeted in the right way?
No. We would be happy to develop this point
but have run out of space.
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?
1. Schemes should be nationwide and should
cover all transport modes.
2. The mechanism of paying operators encourages
them to attract concessionary passengers on profitable routes
rather than to extend their network. The money paid out is in
competition with funds for network expansion. Operators may well
have found it commercially necessary to introduce concessions
anyway, as many theatres have done and as the railways have done.
It would be better if the cash were paid out on a network contract
rather than paying for specific journeys.
Why are there no Quality Contracts?
The process which has to be gone through to
introduce them is too bureaucratic.
Are the powers of the Traffic Commissioners relevant;
are they adequately deploying the powers and resources that they
currently have? Do they have enough support from Government and
local authorities?
They have insufficient resources or backing
to carry out their duties. We are concerned that the Traffic Commissioners
do not have routine access to bus performance data.
Is London a sound model for the rest of the UK?
Yes.
What is the future for the bus?
We have already addressed this in our description
of the four core networks that we believe should be created.
Demand responsive transport is the concept that
has the greatest potential to transform bus services into a new
century.
We are disappointed that you didn't ask about
it but we hope an enquiry might be held to which we could submit
evidence on this point. Alternatively we would be happy to submit
supplementary evidence on this point to this enquiry.
Should metropolitan areas outside London be able
to develop their own form of regulated competition?
Yes.
Would this boost passenger numbers?
Yes, if it is accompanied by effective marketing
and travel change strategies to change people's perceptions about
the bus and by demand management measures, and if the bus is part
of a comprehensive integrated public transport network.
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?
The idea should be abandoned—not just
for buses but for trains as well.
24 May 2006
| 
