IKEA is among the companies supporting Sweden's ambition to double the market share of public transport

Interesting developments in Sweden where a package of reforms to the way public transport is run has been tied to a doubling of public transport’s market share. An ambitious goal by any standards.

The plan (as I understand it) is to set up new PTE-style regional transport authorities who will take responsibility for local public transport provision. Where services are not specified private companies will be able to offer services on a commercial basis. In some ways the reverse of the approach in GB outside London which is that the local transport authorities specify services where there is no commercial provision.

It will be interesting to see how the Swedish approach works in practice as there’s clearly scope for a commercial operator to destabalise a specified network through attacking the busiest routes. Although perhaps they don’t behave in such beastly ways in Sweden! Also it could be that the greatest scope for new services is new inter-urban routes?

The collective push by national government, transport authorities and commercial companies is assisted by some hefty infrastructure works in the largest urban areas as well as some innovative marketing initiatives. For example in Gothenburg 50,000 committed car commuters were given a fortnight’s free travel on public transport as an alternative. And that mighty symbol of Sweden – IKEA – offers a reduction on home deliveries for those who turn up at their stores by public transport.

The doubling concept also ties in with the UITP’s PT x 2 campaign giving that campaign a shot in the arm in the process.

There’s more on the plan on this English language version of the Swedish Doubling Project’s website

http://www.svenskkollektivtrafik.se/fordubbling/Engelska/

The short film is worth watching.

Jonathan Bray

Buses cannot be treated like a typical consumer product

Buses are not like cornflakes

Despite its earlier recognition that “head-to-head competition tends towards instability, the closer the competition between operators becomes” the CC’s latest position isn’t entirely surprising. In reality, there was always a risk that it might revert back to the safe and comfortable haven of perfectly competitive markets. This is the norm for most typical consumer products, say cornflakes, where there’s a permanent threat of competitors coming along and offering a similar product at a lower price. Retailers will put the competing products on their shelves and consumers will logically buy the cheaper one, placing pressure on the incumbent to review its offer.

The problem is that bus services are a tad more complex than cornflakes. Critically, they’re perishable which means that they can only be purchased at very specific points in time. Many passengers will arrive at a bus stop at the same time everyday and will expect to board the first bus that shows up. The decision to wait around for another bus or to adjust the timing of a journey increases the non-monetary cost incurred by passengers. At the same time, if a bus turns up immediately after a preceding service it will find very few passengers to pick up. We have shown in our response to the CC’s report that for these reasons, new entry into an existing corridor at evenly spaced intervals between the incumbent’s services is very likely to be loss making, even where the incumbent is earning substantial profits.

This means that there is a very strong incentive on a new entrant to run its services immediately ahead of the incumbent’s timetable. In turn, the incumbent will respond by adjusting the departure of its services and this process will continue until one of the operators decides to withdraw from the market. Typically, the operator with the deepest pockets survives. The all too familiar by-products of this process, observed most clearly in the post-deregulation period, are an irreversible loss of demand due to network instability, short term losses to operators (eventually leading to higher fares) and an increasingly concentrated market where the law of the jungle dictates who survives.

In a sense, the CC is right – profits have never been lower than in the post-deregulation period. But paradoxically (and this is something the CC probably struggles to understand) this has not resulted in a better outcome for passengers. In the five years following deregulation, bus patronage in the metropolitan areas declined by a quarter despite a substantial increase in bus-kms. Without some degree of timetable coordination, unfettered on-street competition will lead to operators losing money and passengers getting a less reliable and more expensive service. Regrettably, the CC report has also raised serious doubts over high-end partnerships, the type of measure with the potential to achieve a more efficient and sustainable outcome in the context of on-street competition. Evidence from Oxford and Merseyside suggests that where competition has developed, Qualifying Agreements can indeed be used to offer a better and cheaper product to passengers, albeit requiring a degree of regulatory oversight from local transport authorities.

So will the CC be successful in delivering more on-street competition? And how will local transport authorities respond?

If the CC’s remedies achieve its stated objective, this could well take us back to the bus wars of the late 80s. Ironically, this would put increasing pressure on LTAs to bring in SQPs or Quality Contracts, the types of remedy that the CC has been so keen to avoid. If, on the other hand, the remedies have little or no impact, then this may act to strengthen the case for Quality Contracts and we may well see new proposals coming forward. Following the publication of the CC’s report, we have already seen announcements from Nexus and WYPTE which seem to show a growing resolve. On the other hand, the CC’s ambivalence over partnerships could lead to a growing sense of frustration amongst LTAs as operators become increasingly reluctant to participate in fear of the competition authorities. The recent findings on tacit coordination in the North East and the Wirral are only likely to compound these fears. The effect could be to force some LTAs to move towards Statutory Partnerships and possibly Quality Contracts.

So it seems possible that the CC’s myopic obsession with on-street competition could end up back firing and eventually pave the way for a more regulated market. I only wish they would have worked this out before repeating the same mistakes of the past. In the meantime, expect turbulent times ahead.

Pedro Abrantes

This article first appeared in Coach and Bus Week

Norman Baker is determined to drive forward light rail schemes

Norman Baker has long been an advocate of light rail and it is good to see this enthusiasm translated into government thinking with the publication of ‘Green Light for Light Rail’. This document sets out the government’s view of how costs in the light rail industry could be reduced.

The report follows on from a number of reports reaching broadly similar conclusions from the Transport Select Committee, the National Audit Office and pteg‘s joint report with the All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group.

So what difference will it make?

At the heart of much of the debate in this report (and in previous attempts to get under the skin of light rail and its perceived high costs) has been the lack of leadership from the centre. Baker’s report addresses this to some extent. This represents a welcome shot in the arm for promoters and the industry – whose key ask for some time has been for government to take light rail more seriously and actively champion it. Put together with the other recommendations it is possible to see how over the medium to long term it will increase the likelihood of more tram schemes coming on line and at a lower cost.

However, the report is not a McNulty style value for money analysis. Given the difference in scale of support between this work (essentially carried by one civil servant with support from the industry) and McNulty (with its teams of support and big consultancy budget), that is hardly surprising. It can also be argued that light rail is a relatively more complex area on which to draw conclusions, given the variety of operational schemes with their different characteristics (as the report notes ‘no two schemes are directly comparable’).

Further action is needed to produce significant savings

Standardisation alone will not produce significant savings

There are some good ideas in the report around processes, project management (particularly given the Edinburgh experience) and industry capabilities which may well impact on costs, albeit at the margin. However, issues such as standardisation alone will not produce significant savings, given that tram projects are driven by local transport authorities with differing needs (combined with the emphasis more widely by government on localism) and will have separate procurement processes. Critically without a long-run of schemes, and therefore vehicles, costs for trams themselves are likely to remain relatively higher.

It could be argued that there is nothing surprising about the costs of light rail schemes in the context of the UK, particularly given the delivery models (PPP and PFI); the stop-start nature of the flow of work; and the very nature of most tram systems which require substantial sections of on-street running, which in turn mean that the associated costs of urban realm improvements and utilities diversion are largely unavoidable. That is not to say that more cannot be done to improve things and thereby reduce costs. However the key difficulty in promoting light rail schemes and getting them off the ground is connected to the availability of funding. This is an area that the Baker report does not seek to address (nor was it in the terms of reference).

The role of localism

However it is plain to see that the high levels of delivery we see in mainland Europe are more about the ability of local transport authorities to raise their own finance and make decisions locally on how it is spent. We simply do not yet have the means of emulating that local freedom and accountability in this country.

This is something the government is aware of. It has already made noises about devolving funding to the local level (through the local major capital schemes), partially reviewing local government finance (through the business rates review), and supporting initiatives like Tax Increment Financing. It has also recognised the critical importance of infrastructure investment to its aims of economic growth and carbon reduction.

Green Light for Light Rail is therefore a good attempt to summarise the issues around costs and helpful in directing government and industry attention to those factors which may give rise to higher costs (and some of which may have a more marginal impact). This may in turn increase the number of schemes coming forward. However, the fundamentals that lie behind the relatively difficult and intermittent development of UK based tram schemes and the associated costs are more connected to the lack of a sustainable funding stream for light rail. A key theme therefore for the Minister to take up at his proposed ‘tram summit’ will be how to create a steady flow of schemes that can sustain a UK based industry and how transport authorities can be given the wherewithal to fund future tram systems.

Matt Brunt

This article was first published in Transport Times.

The Competition Commission is conducting a two year inquiry into the local bus market

I don’t know about you, but I prefer my fudge to come from Devon and contain clotted cream rather than come in the form of thousands of pages from the Competition Commission’s (CC) dithering economists.

Of course no doubt I would say that because the latest version of the Competition Commission report has made a sudden, unsignalled and rather undignified right turn away from high end partnership and franchising and straight back down the on-street competition cul-de-sac. Exactly why and how they justify such a sudden manoeuvre is unclear and the report doesn’t seem to feel it necessary to explain.

Indeed it’s a strange old process whereby, after a painfully long wait, the final draft report seems so disconnected from those that went before it and the remedies it suggests look thrown together with no explanation of how they might fit together as a coherent package. It’s almost like each report from the OFT and the CC starts again. The tone and the narrative are different and as for the bit that matters – the remedies – these always seem like last minute afterthoughts. Indeed, this investigation seems to take on more incarnations than Dr Who – minus a fully operational sonic screwdriver.

The CC would like to encourage new entrants into the bus market to stimulate competition at the expense of quality and stability

Dreams of easybus

Now I realise that there are those who would forgive the CC anything for being mean about QCs. However don’t laugh too hard as it’s not just QCs that the CC has a certain distaste for, it’s also high end statutory and non-statutory partnerships. Because in reverting to type, the CC has a problem with any partnership that might exclude the theoretical possibility of low end competition.

However unlikely it is to happen, the CC wants to keep the dream alive that some day, ‘easybus’ will arrive offering a low price, lower quality alternative to partnerships based on quality and relative stability. That consumers will have a wide selectionof service choices which, before setting off, they carefully assess on comparethebusoperator. com delightedly weighing comparative matrixes and logarthyms of quality, price and journey time before finally, and in the bliss of perfect competition, head down to the bus stop to make their twenty minute journey to the GPs.

Now given the merest possibility that this nirvana may be attained in the space of one lifetime, qualifying agreements and higher spec partnerships are a worry to the CC because, by their very nature, such agreements are not primarily designed to encourage competition – and definitely not low quality competition. Passengers may like what such agreements bring them but, in the view of the CC, what they should like is as much on-street competition as they can get – and that’s what the CC wants to give them. Indeed that’s what all the potentially useful stuff in the report on ticketing, information and so on is about. It’s not principally about their obvious benefits to passengers, instead it’s that it keeps the CC’s fantasy alive that if the ticketing and information framework functions in an equitable and perfect way then it should encourage the new entrants the CC would sacrifice just about anything for.

Political realities

Now if they followed this logic to its conclusion they should outlaw QAs and high end partnerships. But this is where the politics kicks in as they know that unwinding successful existing partnerships is not something they can get away with. Instead they satisfy themselves with raising the same old uncertainties about what attitude the competition authorities took in the past to such arrangements.

Franchising gets the same treatment. They strike but they don’t kill. They blight what’s there now but they don’t build anything substantial in its place. So the end result is a clumsy set of remedies where CC ideology collides with political realities in the vague hope that somehow the magic wand of BSOG money will make everything alright.

The CC are wrong to cast doubt over partnership solutions that are working right now on the ground.

I suppose to be fair the clue is in the name with the Competition Commission. And, as they say themselves, they lack the social and wider remit that local transport authorities have in making decisions on public transport for their areas. What’s galling however is that, having accepted they only have a narrow perspective, they then go on to cast doubt over solutions that do work right now on the ground. Solutions that have been made to work by people who do have that broader perspective – high end partnerships, SQPs, qualifying agreements and franchising. And the CC does this in favour of a wholly unproven and unsubstantiated claim that their ‘package’ of remedies is superior. There’s still time for them to either prove or withdraw that claim in the final, final, final version. However, the danger is the CC will end up blighting what works right now in favour of the DfT spending years tinkering around in the shadows of the long grass half heartedly trying to stimulate more on-street competition. And what a waste of time that would be.

Jonathan Bray

This is an edited version of an article that originally appears in Coach and Bus Week.

Some £897m of road spending is proposed across the pool

My work at Campaign for Better Transport is currently focused on the 45 ‘Development Pool’ transport projects that are bidding for Department for Transport funding.

We have analysed the final bids that were revealed in September and have produced a briefing which shows that, despite the benefits of sustainable transport, more than half of the schemes proposed by local councils are road-based, with a total of £897 million of road spending proposed across the pool.

The most expensive road schemes in the pool are the ‘zombie’ bypasses that have been dominating local councils’ transport strategies for decades, re-emerging every few years to grab at any potential funding, and crowding out cheaper sustainable transport proposals. Our analysis showed that the new roads in the pool cost more on average than other ideas, and have seen a greater increase in what councils are prepared to risk in ‘local contributions’ since the process of competing for the shrunken DfT pot was launched last year.

Journalist George Monbiot wrote about the plans in his Guardian blog last week and said that they “…should provoke equal outrage among those who oppose the cuts, those who want to protect the environment and those who are still waiting for the rational, integrated transport system we were promised 15 years ago.”

But there are some good ideas hidden amongst the ‘link roads’ and ‘distributor routes’ in the Development Pool: if you look carefully, you can find some really exciting public transport projects that will improve access to transport – and quality of life – for everyone in the local areas concerned.

Leeds is the largest European city without a tram or metro - a trolley bus could fill the gap

The Leeds New Generation Transport project stands out as the most ambitious. Leeds remains the largest European city without a tram or metro network, and their innovative trolley bus proposal seeks to fill that gap.

The Manchester Cross City Bus project would add three new high quality bus routes to the north of the city, including bus-only sections of route, while the South Yorkshire Bus Rapid Transit northern route would create much-needed new transport links between Rotherham and Sheffield, complete with purpose-built stops and real-time information. Rochdale aims to rebuild and relocate its bus station closer to other links, with comfortable modern facilities and better information for passengers.

Some rail and tram projects also feature in the proposals. In the West Midlands, the first stage of the ‘NUCKLE’ network would begin with upgrading the line between Coventry and Nuneaton, including two new stations. In the South East, Transport for London and Hertfordshire County Council are bidding to move the terminus of the Metropolitan tube line to Watford Junction, properly integrating under- and over-ground services in the area at last. Metro in Leeds is also proposing to build two new railway stations at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge, while Sheffield is bidding for new Supertram vehicles to improve service frequencies.

Sheffield is proposing to invest in the Supertram network to improve frequencies

These public transport schemes all show ‘high’ or ‘very high’ value for money, and the services provided will be available for everyone in these towns and cities to enjoy, not just people in cars. Public transport also has a much lower environmental impact – in both landscape and carbon terms – than roads through green fields that will only encourage sprawl and worsen car-dependency.

It’s no accident that the most ambitious public transport projects in the pool are proposed by TfL or one of the PTEs. As our briefing also points out, investing or borrowing on the basis of future fare income is far less risky than the road-promoting councils’ reliance on payments from out-of-town housing and business parks that may never materialise. PTEs, with their track record of delivering public transport schemes and long-term strategies based on continued investment, are in a strong position to make realistic plans – not gamble an area’s future on a few miles of tarmac.

Up to 14 October, the DfT is asking the public to submit comments on schemes they support (or oppose) in the Development Pool, and these comments will influence on ministers’ decisions in December.

You can help by using our interactive map to take a few minutes find and comment on the schemes in your area. Visit: http://bit.ly/roadsmap.

Sian Berry, Campaign for Better Transport

Role of walking and bus underplayed

Multi-storey bike storage at a Dutch station - they had to build over the river to get enough room!

The day focused very much on cycling as a mode of travel to and from stations. We heard how, in this country, just 1-2% of people travel to the station by bike despite the fact that 60% of the population live within 15 minutes cycle ride of a station and the same proportion own a bike. In the Netherlands 40% of people travel to the station by bike- hence they need cycle parking of the scale pictured left!

The bus and walking were rather neglected, the latter being a particular omission given the sheer volume of people who use their two feet to get to stations. Perhaps cycling is just more exciting to talk about and there’s less scope to build shiny new things for walkers and bus users?

The somewhat disproportionate focus during the conference on the provision of cycle parking as a way to get more people cycling to the station certainly suggests that ‘building stuff’ continues to be a preoccupation. Whilst important, where to park your bike when you get to the station is just a small part of the end-to-end journey. What’s equally, if not more, important to many would-be cyclists is the quality of the journey to that point.

Leeds goes Dutch with Cyclepoint - a multi-service cycle facility

Leeds Cyclepoint, for example, was held up as a shining example of good practice, much admired both here and abroad, and rightly so. Situated right opposite the main Leeds station entrance it is attractive and highly visible and could be taken as an indicator that cyclists are valued and supported in the city. However, step outside the station perimeter and you’ll find that the environment for cyclists, whilst improving, is still far from hospitable. As was noted at the conference, partnership is key and local authorities in particular need to be brought on board to deliver the highway improvements necessary to encourage more people to take to two wheels.

More support needed for walking

In focusing on how the needs of cyclists can be accommodated in journeys to and from stations, we must remember that well over half of passengers (excluding those using connecting trains) actually travel to the station on foot. There was little mention at the conference of how we could support these passengers, get even more people to walk to the station and make the journey more pleasant for them.

55% of people walk to the station - we shouldn't neglect them

Walking audits, for example, as undertaken by Transport for London around their Docklands Light Railway network, are a great way to boost walking as a mode. These assess key walking routes into stations for safety, physical barriers and so on and identify ways in which paths can be made more attractive and usable.

More people would like to use the bus to get to stations

People travelling to stations by bus were also given less attention on the day. Some 10% of people access stations by bus but a further 40% would like to do so if bus services were more frequent and fitted in better with train times. It’s one of the reasons pteg is calling for more powers and responsibilities for local rail to be devolved to the PTEs – we can ensure that local rail networks integrate with wider public transport options. It was great to hear Anton Valk (Chief Executive of train operating company Abellio) express his support for more local decision making on rail at the conference.

Smart ticketing is key to joining up journeys

Ticketing can also help join things up. As the Minister pointed out in his speech, if people don’t just have a ticket to a railway station but a ticket that takes them up to their actual destination they will have the confidence that provision exists for them to make that onward journey.

Smartcards are the ultimate end-to-end journey tool

We heard about PlusBus (which enables rail passengers to add local bus travel onto their rail ticket) which goes some way to addressing this and provides a simple, low-tech, low-cost solution for now. However, ultimately, smart ticketing is the way forward – having one card that unlocks bus, rail and tram travel as well as bike and car hire with one touch has to be one of the best ways of supporting people to make end-to-end journeys as smoothly as possible. It also avoids embarrassing exchanges with bus drivers as relayed to me by one delegate who, upon presenting his PlusBus ticket to the driver was told, very slowly, ‘no mate, that’s your train ticket’.

Rebecca Fuller

England 1: London - world class bus provision

Or is it two Englands?

It’s a broad brush assessment and as such very open to critique. For example, what about the analysis that Stagecoach et al prefer which is that there’s two Englands. Down south you can hardly find a seat on a bus for the prosperous environmentally concerned citizenry who gave up their BMWs long ago in favour of the buzz they get from experiencing the joys of partnership-driven harmony. Meanwhile it remains grim up North as people continue to buy cars whilst frustratingly also continuing to cling to misguided ideas about public transport being an accountable public service. The counter-charge to this two Englands analysis would be that growth down south is from a low base with trips per head often low compared with the Mets. High parking charges and cramped street layouts in prosperous standalone cathedral cities are a big help too. Plus the scope for benevolent dictatorships of medium size bus operations which can focus on their neat and tidy markets very effectively – and often do.

Meanwhile in Whitehall these kinds of analyses are usually besides the point. Here, it’s always a tale of two Englands – London, and then beyond that an undifferentiated tiresome mass / mess. For buses historically this has meant that policy has tended to fall back on the vague hand wringing hope that if only the unique circumstances of certain cathedral cities could be magically replicated across entirely different economic, social and transport geographies then everything would be fine. One policy size therefore fits all. Except for London of course.

England 2: Mets and urban areas - bus remains a player, cuts so far minimised

Why does any of this matter?

Well, because although any broad categorisation will be open to critique, it is clear that outside London bus services are not an undifferentiated mass and that the Government’s post-Competition Commission review of bus policy needs to recognise this.

For example, in rural areas how long can we continue with a situation whereby the vast majority of shared and public transport is subsidised – but through different funding pots each with their own administrative costs? Already we are seeing moves to pool budgets on social services, healthcare, education and conventional public transport in parts of England. If you throw in the local branch line, and layer in community transport on top, you start to open up some exciting opportunities for single, cost-effective rural transport networks covered by integrated ticketing and branding. They’ve been doing this in parts of Europe for years.

A DfT bus policy review could give this process a helping hand. In large urban areas and conurbations it should be about growth and integration with buses part of single urban public transport networks bound together through Oyster-style ticketing. In those smaller, standalone cathedral towns and cities where existing arrangements are working well – then why change it? And as for London – well it goes without saying that there’s no need for major policy change there.

England 3: The rest - bus marginalised, cuts to supported services in some areas

Different Englands, different policies

In short different Englands require different policy approaches on bus. The alternative is policy as usual leading to decline as usual. The recent analysis that we commissioned on the impact of policy as usual on the Metropolitan areas made for depressing reading in terms of patronage loss, fares increases and service decline. We are working to try to ensure these forecasts don’t come true but we can’t do it alone.

We need a national bus policy that recognises the challenges and opportunities that the different Englands face. This matters for real people in these Englands because of the dire implications of getting it wrong for those who have no car and no voice. Like for those people who live on one of the most deprived estates in the country in Hartlepool on which there are no facilities and now no bus services either. So no transport to get to jobs, the shops or to the doctors (there’s a video on the Channel Four news website with some genuinely shocking interviews on what this means for people on the estate). Or for the people who are writing into Citizens Advice Bureaus in increasing numbers saying that their benefits have been docked because there’s no bus to get them to a job they’ve been offered. Or who may lose the job they already have because the bus service no longer makes shift work possible. These are the people who will lose out, and in anger and despair, and in ever greater numbers if we don’t get a policy on bus that works for these very different Englands.

Jonathan Bray

This article was first published in Coach and Bus Week.

We need to assemble the case for bus - piece by piece

Facts and evidence doesn’t always win the day (otherwise we would be living in a very different world!) but if you want to win a public policy debate having a combat ready armoury of evidence at your disposal is important. And important becomes vital when you are battling to change the status quo rather than maintain it. I think that we (as in the local transport authorities and bus operators) have more work to do in assembling that armoury if the argument on winning the case for investing and supporting bus services is to be won.

We are on a battlefield where the bus just does not have the same political territorial advantage that cars, trains and planes already have. It’s in these situations where you need all the factual ammunition you can get.

The hammering that the funding stream for small to medium-size public transport schemes (including bus priority schemes) took in the spending review is an example of what can happen when your evidence base isn’t as well delineated as it should be.

The funding stream for these schemes (known as the Integrated Transport Block) has been halved since the election – the specific reason given for this by DfT and HMT is that the evidence for its benefits just wasn’t strong enough. This is remarkable given that a) there’s a consensus that bus punctuality is a key priority for the sector b) that bus priority is a key factor in delivering that better punctuality.

The case for bus priority is strong - it just hasn't been compiled properly

Yet despite this local transport authorities and the bus industry wasn’t able to provide the Government with a sufficiently convincing set of facts, figures, case studies and evidence to persuade them of the benefits. The frustrating thing is that it’s not that the case for bus priority isn’t strong – it’s just that it hadn’t been compiled properly. Although to be fair there are extenuating circumstances. Big expensive transport schemes (like new tram schemes or roads) justify big expensive appraisal and evaluation processes.

Smaller schemes don’t justify the same expenditure on measuring their success. Measuring the benefits of some bus schemes is also intrinsically harder. For example how do you quantify the value of transforming a grotty old bus station into a modern facility? Plus the bus user demographic is poorer than that of car and train users and therefore the time savings benefit (on which conventional cost benefit appraisal rests) are lower. However, extenuating circumstances apart we still need to do better.

We made a start in the first half of this year with a report we published in July on the benefits of small to medium size public transport schemes. The good news was that the report showed that the available evidence shows that these schemes score consistently well in cost benefit terms. The report also set out a cut down appraisal and evaluation process specifically designed for smaller schemes. All of which should help as we further develop the evidence base. Changes are also afoot in Government thinking on appraisal and evaluation that might also help us.

Conventional cost benefit analysis will always be important but perhaps not quite as front and centre as it traditionally has been, as the appraisal wonks move towards a system that places CBA within a wider framework – or story – about what a scheme is trying to achieve and how.

We also now need to move onto developing the evidence base for bus services in general – economically, environmentally, socially – and pteg will make its contribution to this wider mission in the second half of this year. The need for this is particularly pressing given both ATCO’s predictions on future bus cuts, and recent work we commissioned specifically on scenarios for bus services in the Mets. Both of which suggest that business as usual on bus funding will mean decline as usual (at best!).

There’s always a danger for any relatively marginalised sector that it retreats into a comfort zone of feeling hard done to and resorting to self-righteous grumbling, emotion, anecdote and assertion. There’s no doubt that assertion, anecdote and emotion can be persuasive (any good political speech is all about the guts not the head) but if we want to persuade Hammond and Her Majesty’s Treasury then we need a well-articulated evidence base that will stand up to their stony faced scrutiny.

Jonathan Bray

This article was first published in Coach and Bus Week

The bus connects people to opportunity

For anybody involved in the bus industry, the contribution that this mode of travel makes to people’s quality of life is plain to see. The bus is a gateway to opportunity for many people, especially the quarter of all households, and half of all those on the lowest incomes, without access to a car. Opportunity to work, play, learn and to stay healthy and happy.

Benefits of the bus for other sectors

In making these connections, the bus plays a key role in achieving a wide variety of policy goals that extend far beyond the bounds of the transport sector. It can help tackle unemployment, for example, by connecting areas of worklessness to areas of job growth. Combined with fares initiatives, travel advice and information provision for jobseekers, the impact can be significant – in one such PTE-led scheme, 80 per cent of people said they would otherwise have struggled to reach job opportunities.

The bus assists the health sector too. Missed outpatient appointments alone cost hospitals £600m a year. Just one new bus service, connecting disadvantaged communities in Wolverhampton to a specialist health centre, reduced non-attendance by 60 per cent. Social care is also a beneficiary. Bus services help older and disabled people retain their independence, enabling them to do their shopping, get to work and see friends and family without having to rely on others. Analysis shows that just one Ring and Ride service in the West Midlands saved the health sector at least £13.4m thanks to reduced need for care, home help and more costly transport options, such as taxis.

Towards Total Transport

How can we ensure the vital, socially necessary role of the bus is maintained in light of cuts?

The question is, how do we ensure that the vital and socially necessary role of the bus is maintained in light of cuts and spending restrictions that have hit the transport sector particularly hard? Our new report – ‘Total Transport – Working across sectors to achieve better outcomes’ – recommends that agencies across sectors with a stake in transport get together to pool their resources and expertise to deliver desired outcomes as efficiently as possible – a ‘Total Transport’ approach.

Perhaps one of the most tangible ways in which we can move towards a Total Transport approach is by encouraging a more cross-sector, joined-up approach towards the funding and delivery of social needs transport.

In most areas, alongside the mainstream bus network, there are also multiple fleets of vehicles running around performing various functions for different agencies. You have social services, education and patient transport fleets, for example, all with their own separate budgets and policies. Often these services overlap and duplicate one another in terms of their specification, clientele and route. They can also generate significant inefficiencies, with certain vehicles sitting underutilised in the garage for large parts of the day whilst elsewhere transport needs go unmet.

Bringing together vehicle fleets and budgets

Pooling vehicle fleets and budgets could improve efficiency and deliver a more comprehensive service for customers

With money tight and essential services under threat, these inefficiencies cannot be allowed to continue. An alternative, Total Transport approach would see these fleets brought together from across the various agencies and local authority departments into one shared pool under a single budget. The pool of vehicles would be coordinated and scheduled centrally, taking into account capacity on the mainstream network. Such a system would ensure the entire fleet is put to maximum use throughout the day and that the right vehicle is deployed for the right job. Experience from local authorities that have already moved towards an ‘Integrated Transport Unit’ suggests that efficiency benefits can run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Developing such a system is, of course, unlikely to be a straightforward task. Administrative difficulties, harmonisation of different working practices and negotiation of contractual relationships are just some of the challenges that may be encountered. However, there are a range of models already in operation, both here and abroad that can be drawn upon. Also, it is not necessary to move towards a fully centralised system straightaway. Efficiency gains can also be made by identifying synergies at a smaller scale – for example, by utilising the downtime of school buses to provide shopper services during the day or by working with health providers to plan concentrated health assessment days around times when fleets of accessible vehicles are otherwise underutilised. It’s about working together to make the very best use of the assets we already have in order to maintain as full a service as possible for the customer. By doing so we can ensure that the bus continues to help tackle unemployment and promote independence and access to services without placing undue financial strain on any one policy area.

Rebecca Fuller

This article was first published in Coach and Bus Week

Fab street art courtesy of http://cycletc.com/

A few snippets about me and cycling:

• My Dad was a keen cyclist – a member of his local Cyclist’s Touring Club, owner of bikes for all seasons and conditions, wearer of Lycra and avid viewer of the Tour de France.
• I too love cycling. When I ride a bike I can’t stop smiling and inside I’m going wheeeeee!
• I get very excited about beautiful old fashioned style bikes and would love to own one of those fabulous British made Pashley’s – ideally bright red with a wicker basket and shiny bell. 
• Whenever I see an artfully arranged bike on holiday I have to take a picture of it.

And finally (sharp intake of breath):

• I don’t own a bike and the thought of cycling in my home city of Leeds terrifies me.

There. I’ve said it. I’m a passionate advocate and enthusiast for cycling in theory but I don’t actually ride myself. Well, I do but only on holiday in places where it feels safe and nicely separate from cars. Like the lovely ride we took in Croatia (which unexpectedly took in a nudist park – bit of an eye-opener). Or pootling around the beautiful (mainly car free) island of La Digue on honeymoon last year. Later this year we’re off to Center Parcs – I can’t wait to get back on two wheels and ride the woodland trails. But what would it take to get me cycling at home?

A red Pashley - my dream bike

The biggest thing that would make the difference for me, and I’m sure this is the case for many others too, would be wide, continuous cycle lanes that are visibly separate from car traffic either using striking paintwork (like the London Cycle Superhighways) or a raised kerb.

Without this basic infrastructure, no amount of softer measures, be they training courses or cycle-to-work incentives, would convince me to cycle in Leeds or any other city. Softer measures are, of course, important, but they need to form part of a wider package that includes improving the infrastructure.

It’s not just the cars that deter me from cycling. Other cyclists can also be quite scary – mainly from the sense that many are ‘built for speed’ – Lycra clad and hurtling along at a terrifying pace. Perhaps wider lanes would allow these speedy cyclists to peacefully co-exist with those of us proceeding more sedately. I’ve written before about cycling in Copenhagen – I didn’t see any Lycra there – is the urban commute really the place for this kind of cycling? Or is it that in many UK cities people are forced to cycle in a more defensive fashion with a ‘me versus the traffic’ attitude stemming from a lack of proper infrastructure and priority for people on bikes?

I’m sure there are lots of other aspiring bicycle belles (and boys) who could be lured onto two wheels if only proper road space were to be allocated to people on bicycles. More city leaders outside London need to take the issue by the handle bars and champion cycling so that, as is beginning to become the case in London, it is seen as something that everyone can do – not just the Lycra wearing few.

Rebecca Fuller