Bus services need less regulation and more subsidy not council committees deciding routes.

Geography matters when you're thinking of running a bus service. I know this sounds pretty obvious but it does seem to be a little lost on the London-based political commentariat who rather assume that getting a bus in, say, Appleby-in-Westmoreland is going to be the same as getting a bus at Oxford Circus.

The geography problem is that Appleby is 34 miles from its nearest large town, Carlisle - by comparison 34 miles from Oxford Circus gets you to Sevenoaks in Kent. Nobody is going to run a bus service as frequent as you'd expect in London on these long rural routes. And, because not that many people want to go from Appleby to Carlisle, the passenger numbers are lower.

London's area is just short of 2,000 square miles and holds a population over 8 million. The northernmost part of England (Cumbria, Nortumberland, Durham and Tyne & Wear) is over 6,000 square miles but has only 2.8 million people, nearly half of whom live in the five Tyne and Wear metropolitan districts. And across this area are thousands of little communities and thousands more isolated farmsteads - saying "we should have a system like London" is ridiculous.

Bus usage has been declining (less quickly in London but it has fallen even there) but the density of London means that there are far more profitable routes available to, as the advocates of state-directed regulated bus systems say, cross-subsidise the unprofitable but socially-desirable routes. I'm not defending the current semi-regulated situation, it's the worst of both worlds in many ways with (as the Competition Commission in 2011 concluded) too many barriers to entry, too little competition and too much of a cosy relationship between Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) and the bus operators. But the answer - in as far as there is a way to design an effective bus service for dispersed populations across large rural areas - lies in less regulation not more along with a transport subsidy system focused more on supporting social necessity rather than subsidising commuter travel.

There are a lot of bus users (far more than trains):



Nearly four-and-a-half billion journeys but look more closely and not only are half those journeys in London but if you take those passenger journeys on a per mile basis, London get 7.5 passenger journeys per mile travelled compared to just 2 for rural England.

Simply saying, as the bus regulation fans say, that re-regulation or nationalisation will change everything is to deny the reality of geography - the nature of England's population distribution means you can't create a system for most of it where everyone is five minutes from a bus stop with a regular service. We need to think differently and, rather than simply hand over new powers to committees of local councillors or new-fangled elected mayors, we should combine subsidy with further deregulation.

Why not allow more people - whether private businesses, community groups, or councils - to set up services. Take a look at PickMeUp in Oxford (admittedly an urban area) - with 22,000 people registered for the app:

PickMeUp, managed by the Oxford Bus Company on behalf of Go-Ahead Group, is the largest scheme of its kind to be launched by a UK bus company. It enables passengers to request a mini-bus pick-up within 15 minutes at a virtual bus stop using a mobile phone app. The service provides the flexibility to choose both the start and end point of journeys within the Eastern Arc of the city. Technology enables passengers to be matched with others making similar journeys to enable ride sharing.

Or consider innovations like San Francisco's 'Google Bus' or New Jersey's jitneys as well as asking whether the app-based ridesharing model used by Lyft and Uber is a model relevant to public transport systems in dispersed populations. We could also deliver the subsidy via the app using postcodes to ensure that it's used to resolve the social issues connected to isolation. And lastly there's the prospect of driverless technology - even drone buses - making it more economic to serve those isolated communities.

It isn't a scandal that bus fares are higher outside London, nor is it a consequence of deregulation or privatisation. It's the result of subsidy being withdrawn (or rather shifted from buying routes to providing bus passes) and this has meant that only the profitable town-to-town routes remain. Bus companies, in competition with urban rail and light rail systems, are putting in wi-fi, reclining seats and air-conditioning while reducing the overall system coverage. A wise government would open up the market to new innovations and initiatives but to make this possible we would need a significant increase in public subsidy. One option here might be to shift subsidy away from intercity trains (the London commuter - Southern Rail etc. - trains are largely unsubsidised) that are mostly used by the relatively well off and move it to supporting bus services that largely serve poorer populations.

It is welcome that we're talking about bus services in England but if the start and finish of the discussion is to simply go back to expensive, inefficient, pre-1985 services then we are doing the millions of people who use buses a massive disservice. The opportunity to combine public subsidy with market innovation would be missed and we'd end up with services determined by political whim and prices that don't reflect demand or need. Above all, if we try to apply a system that works well for a concentrated population of millions to a dispersed population of thousands, we'll end up with a complete mess.

....

The problem with public transport...

In many ways, the definition of public transport, is a system of travel taking you from one place you don't want to be to another place you don't want to be. Unless, of course, you're a fan of airports, railways stations and bus stops. This isn't to suggest public transport is unnecessary or unwanted, merely to observe one of its biggest weaknesses. Even in London with probably the world's most comprehensive and widespread urban system, this inconvenience is only really conquered in the two inner zones.

This issue is compounded by the nature of employment:

A telling reality for proponents of increased public transport investment is that employment remains – and in some cases is increasingly – suburban by nature. Between 8 and 9 out of 10 of all jobs in metropolitan regions are suburban by location, and when you consider that the same proportion of residents in any metropolitan location are also suburban by residence, the problem of servicing this reality through public transport is apparent.

You don't believe this? Well think about your London suburb. About all the jobs that don't involve getting on the train, bus or tube and heading into town. The people working in shops, for borough councils, primary health, hospitals - even manning those railway stations and bus depots. These people don't fit that classic commuter model and, in most places, don't match to a cost-effective mass transit system.

This is why - for all its faults and flaws - ride-sharing (using whatever model) represents a valuable contribution to reducing urban congestion. It makes little or no sense to set on a bus for the journey a particular commuter is making to get to work, except that there are perhaps ten or a dozen others making a similar journey. To kill off ride-sharing models on mostly spurious (and essentially protectionist) regulatory grounds makes absolutely no sense at all - yet that is precisely what many (if not most) city authorities and public transport regulators are doing.

For me the most telling statistic - the one that tells us those billions bunged at public transport won't solve the problem - is that over 80% of journeys are made in private cars. And when it comes to commuter journeys nearly 90% of journeys use this form of transport. There isn't the remotest prospect of us building sufficient public transport capacity to make anything but the smallest impact on the congestion those car journeys make.

....

Quote of the day - why public transport doesn't reduce car use

****

We're constantly told by transport planners that active interventions in transport systems are all about model shift - a posh term for getting people to use something other than their own car. But the problem is that there's precious little evidence showing these interventions (other than pricing interventions such as the London congestion charge) make any difference to behaviour. We prioritise the wrong set of folk.

The line of reasoning in the opening quote* suggests the primary purpose of transit is reducing auto travel, rather than serving people who want to or must use transit. In other words, building transit is good because it reduces traffic congestion (and almost no one argues building roads is good because it reduces transit crowding).

That is at best a secondary benefit, a benefit which could be achieved must more simply and less expensively through the use of prices as we do with almost all other scarce goods in society, even necessities like water.

We should therefore be investing in transit systems so as to benefit the people who for reasons of economics or circumstance have no choice other than to use those systems. The trendy urbanist vision of a car-free city filled with sleek trams, funky buses and kids cycling to schools is - as I know you all suspected - something of an utopian pipe dream. The truth is that we need public transport for the old, the young, the less well of and those unable, for whatever reason, to use a car.

(*the opening quote in the article is: “Every person who is riding transit is one less person in the car in front of us.”)

....

Fascinating Yellow Bus stat....

****

Makes you think this:

"School bus carriers operate the largest mass transportation fleet in the country. Each day, 480,000 yellow school buses travel the nation’s roads. Compare that to transit, with 140,000 total vehicles, 96,000 of which are buses; to the motor coach industry, with 35,000 buses; to commercial airlines, with 7,400 airplanes; and to rail, with 1,200 passenger cars. In fact, our school bus fleet is 2.5 times the size of all other forms of mass transportation combined."

And there's loads more about America's yellow bus fleet here.

....

Driverless cars. Or why we shouldn't waste our money on high speed rail.

****

I know I'm a bit grumpy sometimes but I still take the view that the essential limitation of public transport is that is takes you from one place where you don't want to be to another place you don't want to be. Unless you're a trainspotter. And the bigger the distance travelled the further those unwanted start and finish points are from where we want to be. The high speed railway may whizz us from Manchester to London in a breath but for 99% of travellers they don't want to go to Euston station which means an onwards journey, one that could take as long as the journey in the lovely fast train.

The plus side of public transport is that you don't have to drive the train, plane or bus and can sit back and admire the view (or, if you'd rather, get on with writing your novel, catching up with TV or even doing some work). So travel is less stressful, at least until you need to lug your bag across three platforms and up two sets of escalators and then cram yourself onto an overcrowded tube train filled with people who appear to be considering murdering you for having a large bag. And let's not imagine trying to get a bus!

The solution - where the technical investment should go - must be in combining the door-to-door advantage of the private car with the relaxation of good public transport. And this means that, instead of billions on a limited fixed rail system connecting a half-a-dozen places to London, we should be looking at driverless cars. Because these do solve those problems and hold out the opportunity for long distance road travel to be significantly more efficient.

Here's Sam Bowman speculating (not unreasonably) about the opportunity:

Instead of spending 90 minutes driving in and out of work each day, commuters will be able to catch up with a newspaper and a cup of coffee while their car drives for them. Or by working remotely for those 90 minutes, a 9 to 5 employee could increase their daily earnings by 20 per cent.

Coordinating with each other remotely, driverless cars will be able to avoid other traffic, maybe ending congestion entirely. Cars are parked for 98 per cent of their lives: to exploit that, driverless car owners could turn their vehicles into taxis while they’re at work, drastically reducing costs for everyone. Eat your heart out, Uber.

One third of transportation costs are labour costs, which will be eliminated entirely, and driverless lorries will be able to travel non-stop, making goods transportation much cheaper. Driverless freight transport may eventually outcompete rail on time and price entirely, especially if driverless-only highways are built that allow for much faster speeds, making railroads entirely redundant.

We're still a fair distance from this world (and we can add local 'pod' systems such as that proposed for Milton Keynes to the mix) but it is clear that investment - brainpower and cash - is going into the driverless car. And that it makes the £30 billion plus proposed for HS2 seem like a completely misplaced investment.

The problem we have is that the public transport lobby has become a combination of vested interest (rail and bus operators want more money going into railways and bus systems) and misplaced environmentalism. Over half our national transport budget is being spent on subsidising inefficient transport systems and even the capital investment is misdirected - for example, Leeds are planning to spend £250 million putting a bus on a string.

The solutions have to be how we make more efficient use of road space - automation leads to safer travel and to significant improvements in fuel efficiency (what we could call the 'peloton principle') - rather than, as is the case now, responding to congestion by seeking to reduce use. Driverless systems also solve another problem - they are good (by travelling in peleton) for long distances yet still provide the flexibility to allow for door-to-door travel.

Given that we aren't expecting to see HS2 built for at least 15 years, it seems a better bet to line up behind private investment in road transport to get systems that respond to real need rather than narrowly-focused arguments about rail capacity.

....

Motorists already fund all of public spending on transport...

****

The IPPR have taken to the airwaves calling for motorists to be taxed until the pips squeak (or something like that). However, the true picture is that taxes on motoring - fuel duty and road tax - already provide every penny that the government spends on transport. Yes folks that's the money spent on looking after roads as well as all the subsidies to keep trains and buses going.

Fuel duty raises around 4% of total government revenue - for 2010/11 this was some £27.3 billion.

The vehicle excise duty (road tax) raised some £5.8billion in the same year giving a grand total of £33.1 billion.

I haven't included a proportion of VAT - on new vehicles, on the maintenance of vehicles and on fuel - but we can guess at a few more billion from this source. Motorists are - with smokers and drinkers - a grade one cash cow for the government.

And, of course, it all gets re-invested in the roads!

In the same year that the £33.1 billion was raised in income from motorists, the total budget for transport was £23 billion - the treasury is clearing a cool £10 billion from motorists!

And - as we know - much of that £23 billion budget goes on subsidising public transport - about £12.5 billion. Which - once you've taken out the bits spent on cycling, air transport and assorted oddities - leaves about £9.5 billion for the roads.

So next time you hear some self-righteous greeny from a think tank saying we should tax motorists more, tell them politely to go away.

....