APPENDIX 37
Memorandum submitted by CTC
The CTC has since 1878 provided a voice for
cyclists in shaping transport policy and provision, and today
represents some 70,000 members and affiliates mostly based in
the UK.
The use of the bicycle as transport, and its
value as a complementary mode to public transport are key areas
in which CTC and its members press for recognition and implementation
of policy and projects. In years past it was common for bicycles
to be carried on rural bus services, and the SMT Conditions of
Carriage (Clause 7(d)) specifically identified the carriage of
cycles, even as late as the mid 1980s. The publicly owned and
regulated operators were, through the nature of running to a specification
of levels of service rather than profit, also more likely to consider
peripheral markets such as bike carriage.
REGULATION AND
DELIVERY OF
A PUBLIC
TRANSPORT SERVICE
However the irony has been that with the "regulation"
of the Disability Discrimination Act to specify the design and
in some respects the operation of vehicles has lead to the introduction
of "easy access" low floor buses, but despite this arrangement
making it easier to board a bus with a bicycle, the ability to
use a combination of bicycle and bus to travel around has with
a number of exceptions been severely curtailed. Some redress is
now happening as the appearance of compact and light folding bicycles
has made it easier to take a bicycle on to a bus, and coach, and
a few examples are appearing where a service bus or coach (rather
than a special seasonal or chartered service) is carrying conventional
bicycles presented in as-ridden condition.
A further very recent development has been the
development of specific Uplift services for mountain bike downhill
centres, where, just as downhill skiers cannot ski back uphill
these bicycles are too heavy and high-geared to ride back to the
top. Several MTB centres have now registered as PSV operators
and run buses or coaches with up to 30 seats, hauling the bikes
behind on trailers, on public roads or internal forest tracks.
Several of these centres pose a major traffic problem both internally
and on the public road as the lack of capacity to carry bikes
on bus services means that the clients all travel by private car
(few are located near rail stations and as noted the downhill
bikes are not really suitable for riding on roads. In one example
the 330,000 visitors now all arrive by car (660,000 potential
bus trips which could be won for a single rural bus route), and
20 years ago we could take at least four bikes per bus (8% of
seated capacity) to this location.
Whilst the leisure market may demand high capacity
on each vehicle, the general utility transport demand, indicated
by experience of overseas and a few UK examples, is likely to
be between one and three bikes per bus or up to 4% of full seated
capacity. A recent audit of a bike carrying rural bus network
in Sheffield indicated that 30 bikes per month were travelling
on the two bus allocation. The rapid growth of folding bicycle
ownership driven by rail operator restrictions for commuters has
delivered a knock-on effect of more bus passengers presenting
with these machines, and the occasional spat being reported where
a cyclist is refused carriage by the bus driver. Generally the
major operators are recognising this issue, briefing staff accordingly,
and adjusting their conditions of carriage where there might be
ambiguity (eg National Express Clause 7.1, Scottish Citylink Clause
11(e) etc).
As an element of an integrated transport system,
the bicycle delivers a number of key benefits in moving people
to and from diverse destinations, and it has great use in this
respect for bringing passengers to bus stops from a catchment
covering around 16 times the area which would be served by an
equivalent "walk to stop" time. The bicycle delivers
at the level of individual trips, and especially when linked to
bus services, can fill in the gaps where the user cannot fit their
business to a limited bus timetable—for example when the
Denbigh-Ruthin cycle carrying service was introduced, there were
several regular users who caught the bus one-way and cycled the
other because they did not want to wait for the two hourly bus
service. If the option is extended to a 100% provision for cycle
carriage on bus routes in an area, then the further opportunity
to travel out on one route and back on another, and cycling the
difference keeps the distances and type of cycling attractive
to the general population rather than being limited to fit enthusiasts.
Pernsioners especially, who are using the bicycle
as an aid to mobility, where they cannot walk far without pain,
and may well have had to give up driving on medical or other grounds,
are now able to get to the bus stop and use bus services, which
they now get free. Several have reported their experiences, mostly
fraught, in travelling with their bikes, and we have a clear question
about why cycles used as mobility aids fail to get proper recognition
for this.
Further, a flaw in the Free OAP buys travel
highlighted by those who live just beyond a boundary for example
those in Glenfield (Leicester) do not get free travel on the buses
going in to the city, but just two infrequent services to villages
in the opposite direction. Maybe a bicycle and bus combination
will help to solve this if a National "Golden Years"
pass is not deliverable immediately.
The University services, which are showing double
figure percentage growth, show that where a service can be specified
by the user (and paid for by them) regulation delivers growth.
CTC experiences this with the bus services to their HQ—these
run to a specification set by the University, Queen Elizabeth
Park, and the Surrey Hospital. The service has grown to the extent
that Arriva are reported to want to take it on commercially—but
the clients know that they will lose the ability to set the standards—hence
we get regulation by contract, and the contract set by the Travel
Plan.
It is useful here to look at how cycle carriage
on buses has developed over a 30 year period in the US, to the
extent that over half the US local bus fleet has bike racks, and
over one million bike on bus trips are estimated to take place
every month. Several operators have increased the capacity of
their bike racks from two to three bikes to cater for the demand.
Initially cycle carriage was introduced on long estuarial bridges,
as a pragmatic solution to the demand by cyclists to use a short
route across water in preference to a shoreline route up to 18
times longer (Seattle), but the short route was either illegal
(Freeway), or with high disincentive to all but the most hardened
cyclists, used to riding with fast moving motorised traffic unsafe.
The programme accelerated in 1990, when the first fast loading
front mounted racks were introduced, and now roughly 1.5% of all
local bus trips are made with a bicycle accompanying the passenger.
The ultimate bike bus service is where a physical barrier to cycling
exists, and one example of this is in Havana, where cyclists roll-up
a ramp to board old buses with all seats removed. These buses
than provide a shuttle service through the harbour tunnel, between
the city and the recreational beaches. The writer had suggested
a similar shuttle operation for cycles and foot passengers to
shuttle up and down Park Hill in Bristol, as a lower cost alternative
to a cycle-specific "ski-tow" open to a wider population
of users (eg wheelchairs, prams and all who found the long hill
a tiring slog).
In mainland Europe this figure is we believe
lower, and the introduction of low floor vehicles well before
these were considered by most US operators, has resulted in several
European operators accepting bicycles inside the bus, especially
in Germany and Switzerland.
BUS DRIVER/CYCLIST
RELATIONS
We have noted regular comment and occasional
intervention by the Traffic Commissioners, relating to over-zealous
competitive activity where the non regulated regime has drifted
into dangerous waters. Whilst not delivering a direct conflict
between cyclists and bus drivers, the shared road space and common
speed through an urban area, places the cyclists at risk from
buses being driven to block or run-ahead of competing vehicles.
BTEC and other training has taken the bus-driver cyclist relationship.
Too little may be done by way of recording and taking action over
deliberately bad driving, at driver level. Lassitude on compliance
with "conduct" regulations sees drivers carrying out
other actions whilst driving, to the detriment of their performance,
and possible fatal outcomes, as considered by the Cowley Road
inquest.
IN CONCLUSION
The integration between bus operations and cycling
has had mixed fortunes since the deregulation of bus services.
There is a potential market which straight commercial decisions
are failing to develop, and a significant gain in integrating
cycling with bus and coach services. When comparing the walk to
rail station, with cycle to rail station, the number of households
within 10 minutes of the train is tripled to around 60% from 19%.
The potential to deliver a regular daily bus to over 90% of UK
households is immense, if regulation of bus and coach operations
extends beyond guaranteed access for wheelchairs to those with
bicycles and other luggage. Even locations supposedly served by
bus in place of a rail service (service 95 Scottish Borders) do
not deliver the same level of service (bikes for example are not
carried at all (officially) making it almost impossible to get
to a Borders destination other than by cycling (a major effort
and time consuming) or using a private car.
The expanded market includes older cyclists
making regular optional journeys who will have flexible enough
arrangements to fill off-peak services, and the disabled who use
bicycles as mobility aids (embracing not only those who prefer
a bicycle to a wheelchair, but the registered blind, and those
with motor/skeletal problems. Many have moved over from rail to
road, and air/ferry (to spend money and time abroad instead) taking
substantial annual spending on travelling to leisure tours or
sporting events, away. TRL research shows the cycling community
to be well connected to the internet, and with money to spend,
where they recognise a service is being delivered. Many are equally
geographically literate and seasoned travellers, who know what
is available but are unable to get the services they want—evidence
is that where services are specified by the user, and operators
regulated by contract (Arriva in Guildford, Unilink, Derby Universitybus)
patronage goes up.
Unfortunately the only figures available for
use of buses with bikes are those for seasonal special services,
and the Sheffield Rural Links, on an intermittent basis.
There is wide variation in how priority measures
accommodate cycles with buses, and how conflicts can be reduced.
Generally however priority measures have benefit when bus frequencies
are not intense.
There is a future for the bus but we have to
consider using it in different ways—changing bus or changing
mode where the connections are seamless, using buses to overcome
obstacles—climbing hills on short worked roll-on roll-off,
standing passenger services, going one way or part way by bus
and cycling or walking as a transport element of the trip. The
canvas is wide and our current focus is narrow.
26 May 2006
|
