We should talk trains less – and buses more

Buses on Manchester's Wilmslow Road. Image: Divy/Wikimedia Commons.

Buses have long been underappreciated in the UK. In the debates that rage around public transport, the bus seems to lose out to other modes in the battle for attention that has an impact on policymakers.

The traditional New Year uproar over train fares rises is one example of this trend. But it goes unremarked that bus fares have risen in line with rail fares over the last 30 years, with both growing at nearly twice the level of inflation. By contrast, the real cost of motoring has fallen in that period – something which is much worse news for buses than trains.

Who does this bus fare inflation primarily affect? People from the poorest fifth of households catch nearly 10 times as many buses as trains, but buses become much less popular relative to trains as household incomes rise. As we go up the income scale, that ratio shrinks to 7:1 for the second lowest quintile of household, then 3:1 and 2.4:1, until we get to the richest fifth of people, who on average catch more trains than buses.

In other words, the political and media obsession with rail fares is to the detriment of poorer people in cities across the country.

This is one good reason why buses should have a more prominent place in the national debate about public transport – but there are many others.

The scale of bus usage is huge, especially relative to rail/light rail usage outside London

Buses are the workhorses of local transport systems. The National Travel Survey shows that, in urban areas outside of London, around 6 per cent of all journeys are made on buses exclusively – much more than via rail, which accounts for only 0.5 per cent of all journeys, in seventh place behind cars, walking, buses, bicycles, taxis and other modes of transport.

Around half of multimode journeys include rail usage. But even if we add those to journeys taken exclusively on trains, that still equates to less than a quarter of the number of bus journeys in cities beyond the capital.

Bus services reach into almost every corner of our cities, linking neighbouring areas together. Trains play much more limited role in local travel in most cities. In fact, 64 per cent of train journeys begin or end in London – which nonetheless accounts for over half of bus journeys in England.

As such, the debate about train fares is primarily of interest to people in London and its surrounding areas. By contrast buses, by far the main mode of public transport in cities elsewhere in the country, barely get a mention in public discussions around transport.


Buses are a brilliant – and undervalued – mode of transport

We might not think of them as being the newest technology or hugely innovative. However, the modern bus – running in a well organised, integrated transport network – offers economic, financial, social, cultural, and environmental qualities it would be foolish to look past.

For example, a large modern diesel bus can be up to 500 times less toxic (per passenger) than some small modern diesel cars. Around 22 per cent of bus journeys are commutes, underlining their importance as mode of transport for people getting to work. (This figure is bigger in London, where buses are cheaper, more plentiful and more integrated in to the transport system.)

Suffice to say that buses offer benefits that other transport modes do not, and deserve a greater role in the debate on public transport on this basis alone.

Bus services are under threat

Despite some notable exception – such as Brighton, Merseyside and Nottingham – journeys have fallen in most cities over recent years.

The reasons for this are numerous: some people have been tempted into cars because driving, or being driven, is cheaper. Others may be put off buses because the reliability/efficiency/regularity/price have deteriorated, possibly driven by reduced local authority subsidies.

Research by the Campaign for Better Transport shows that, since 2010-11 a total of £73.8m has been cut from supported bus services in England, a reduction of 25 per cent. But the decline of the bus – if allowed to continue – will be result longer traffic jams, dirtier air, and less active, prosperous or integrated cities.

Moreover, the scale of bus usage means that any falls in journey numbers have a big impact on overall public transport usage in a city. In South Yorkshire, a 20 per cent fall between 2010 and 2016 equated to around 15m few journeys per year – greater in absolute terms than the entire annual ridership of the Sheffield Supertram network, which carries around 12.6m passengers.

The truth about trains

Compared to this, trains appear to be in rude health, if a little cramped and expensive at rush hour. Rail passenger numbers have doubled in 20 years. On some parts of the network in the South East growth has outstripped even that: the Thameslink franchise has seen numbers double in just 10 years.

The railways are fantastic feats of engineering. They stand apart from other modes of transport by physically standing apart: they have the privilege of operating on their own network completely free of any other kinds of traffic, apart from freight trains and the occasional level crossing. It’s fair to argue that we need more and better trains.

But whatever the problems with the existing rail system, the threats to bus services across the country are deserving of a much greater focus in national conversations about transport.


Devolution will be integral to strengthening and improving bus networks in cities across the country

These threats have started to get some national media coverage outside in recent months – for example, the BBC highlighted the issue of shrinking services last month as part of its collaboration with local media. But as Chris Todd from the Campaign for Better Transport points out, getting buses up the policy agenda to where they need to be is not helped by the probability that journalists and politicians catch the train more than the bus.

And with national media and politics so focused on London – where bus quality and usage has flourished since the start of the millennium – even those that do catch the bus won’t be having a representative experience. Personal experience can have a huge impact on public policy. This can be for good if it is representative of the broad spectrum of experience. But if it is narrow and unrepresentative, it can blinker policy and warp its focus. Putting more powers and funding in the hands of cities is one way to avoid some of the biggest blunders that this can create.

Buses deserve and demand a bigger place in the transport debate. Much of what makes trains work in this country – franchising, focus and funding – would be fantastic for our bus networks and our cities.

Hopefully this is what the Bus Services Act will help bring to cities with metro mayors.   

Simon Jeffrey is a researcher and external affairs officer at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

What’s behind the rise of the ornamental restaurant toilet?

Toilets at Sketch restaurant, London. Image: Nik Stanbridge/Flickr.

A few weeks ago, I found myself in the toilets of a zeitgeisty new Italian restaurant in east London called Gloria. As with so many contemporary restaurant toilets, those in question were an aesthetic extension of the establishment’s soul. The inventive menu was matched by two-way mirrored toilet doors.

The setup was this: cubicle occupants could see out while the unisex crowd milling around the taps could check their outfits on the exterior mirrors. All fun and games, I thought. But then I found myself mid toilet with a guy peering into my door to change his contact lens. Either he had spectacularly bad manners or he was unaware of the two-way door thing. (Let’s hope it’s the latter.)

Gloria’s toilets aren’t unique in their attempt to be distinctive. The loos at nearby Mr Fogg’s Maritime Club & Distillery are adorned with specimen boards of dead spiders. Meanwhile, Edinburgh’s The Sun Inn invites patrons to pee in buckets, and trumpets double as urinals in The Bell Inn in East Sussex. Men can wee into the vista if they’re dining in the Shard. And Sketch’s ovum shaped loos are the stuff of urban legend.

Further afield, transparent doors become frosted only after they’re locked at Brussels’ Belga Queen. In Otto’s Bierhalle in Toronto, diners can press a button to activate their own private rave. And the toilets in Robot Restaurant in Tokyo have gold-plated interiors and dancing robots.

What’s behind this trend? Are quirky toilets just a bit of fun – or an unnecessary complication to the simple act of going for a wee and checking you don’t have tomato sauce on your chin?

Yotam Ottolenghi’s London flagship restaurant Nopi crops up often in conversations about restaurant bathrooms. A hall of mirrors glitters enticingly ahead of loo-bound diners. “The bathroom needs to be the nicest part [of] the whole place because that’s where you’re on your own,” says Alex Meitlis, the designer behind the space.

But no one is truly alone in 2019. If surveys are to be believed, nearly 65 per cent of millennials take their phone to the bathroom with them. Mike Gibson, who edits the London food and drink magazine Foodism agrees that the bathroom selfie – searches for which, incidentally, yield over 1.5m results on Instagram – is part of the reason that contemporary lavatory design is so attention seeking.


“Any new venue that's opening will be super aware that there's probably not an inch of their restaurant that won't be photographed or filmed at some point”, he says. But bathrooms like Nopi’s predate this trend. Indeed, Meitlis believes he has created a haven from the smartphone obsession; Nopi’s mirrors are angled in such a way that means you have to seek out your reflection. “You can choose whether to look for yourself in the mirror or not.”

Another driving force is the increasingly competitive restaurant landscape. “It’s almost like there’s some sort of ever-escalating competition going on amongst new openings, which makes every visit a faintly terrifying experience”, says food writer and New Statesman contributor Felicity Cloake. Gibson agrees. “Restaurants want an edge wherever possible, and design definitely comes into that.”

So novelty bathrooms get you noticed, promote social media engagement and entertain diners who are momentarily without the distraction of company. (Although, it must be said, quirky bathrooms tend to make the loo trip a more sociable experience; a Gloria spokesperson described the restaurant’s toilets as somewhere you can “have a good laugh and meet people along the way.”)

Nevertheless, I’m not the only one who finds bathroom surprises disconcerting.  One TripAdvisor user thought the Belga Queen loos were “scary”. And a friend reports that her wonderment at the Nopi bathroom was laced with mirror maze induced nausea – and mild panic when she realised she didn’t know the way out. Should restaurants save the thrills for the food?

“I think it's important not to be too snarky about these things – restaurants are meant to playful,” says Gibson. Cloake agrees that novelty is fine, but adds: “my favourite are places like Zelman Meats in Soho that have somewhere in the dining room where you can easily wash your hands before sitting down and tucking in.”

So perhaps we should leave toilets unadorned and instead ramp up the ornamentation elsewhere. Until then, I’ll be erecting a makeshift curtain in all mirrored toilets I encounter in future. An extreme reaction, you might say. But, as I wish I could have told the rogue contact lens inserter, it’s not nice to pry into someone else’s business.