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.

 
 
 
 

Cycling on London’s Euston Road is still a terrifying experience

Cyclists on the Euston Road. Image: Jonn Elledge.

The New Road, which skirted the northern boundaries of London’s built up area, first opened in the 1750s. Originally, it was intended to link up outlying villages and provide a route to drive sheep and cows to the meat market at Smithfield without having to pass through the congested city centre. 

As with bypasses and ring roads the world over, however, it increasingly became congested in its own right. Today, you won’t often find livestock on the route, which is now Marylebone, Euston and City roads. But you will find up to six lanes of often stationary buses, cabs, and private vehicles. In a city whose centre is largely free of multi-lane highways, London’s northern ring road has long been the sort of abomination that you avoid at all costs.

But now, somewhat surprisingly, the road is seeing yet another new use. Earlier this week, the first phase of a temporary cycle lane opened on the Euston Road, the middle section of the route which runs for roughly a mile. As London rethinks roads throughout the city, this addition to the cycling map falls solidly into the category of streets that didn't seem like candidates for cycling before the pandemic.

It is, to be clear, temporary. That’s true of many of the Covid-led interventions that Transport for London is currently making, though those in the know will often quietly admit to hoping they end up being permanent. In this case, however, the agency genuinely seems to mean it: TfL emphasized in its press release that the road space is already being allocated for construction starting late next year and that "TfL will work with local boroughs to develop alternate routes along side streets" when the cycle lane is removed.

At lunchtime on Friday, I decided to try the lane for myself to understand what an unlikely, temporary cycle lane can accomplish. In this case it's clear that the presence of a lane only accomplishes so much. A few key things will still leave riders wanting:

It’s one way only. To be specific, eastbound. I found this out the hard way, after attempting to cycle the Euston Road westbound, under the naive impression that there was now a lane for me in which to do this. Neither I nor the traffic I unexpectedly found myself sharing space with enjoyed the experience. To be fair, London’s cycling commissioner Will Norman had shared this information on Twitter, but cyclists might find themselves inadvertently mixing with multiple lanes of much, much bigger vehicles.

It radically changes in width. At times the westbound route, which is separated from the motor traffic by upright posts, is perhaps a metre and a half wide. At others, such as immediately outside Euston station, it’s shared with buses and is suddenly four or five times that. This is slightly vexing.

It’s extremely short. The publicity for the new lane said it would connect up with other cycle routes on Hampstead Road and Judd Street (where Cycleway 6, the main north-south crosstown route, meets Euston Road). That’s a distance of roughly 925m. It actually runs from Gower Street to Ossulton Street, a distance of barely 670m. Not only does the reduced length mean it doesn’t quite connect to the rest of the network, it also means that the segregated space suddenly stops:

The junction between Euston Road and Ousslston Street, where the segregated lane suddenly, unexpectedly stops. Image: Jonn Elledge.

 

It’s for these reasons, perhaps, that the new lane is not yet seeing many users. Each time I cycled the length of it I saw only a handful of other cyclists (although that did include a man cycling with a child on a seat behind him – not something one would have expected on the Euston Road of the past).


Though I hesitate to mention this because it feeds into the car lobby’s agenda, it was also striking that the westbound traffic – the side of the road which had lost a lane to bikes – was significantly more congested than the eastbound. If the lane is extended, it could, counterintuitively, help, by removing the unexpected pinch points at which three lanes of cars suddenly have to squeeze into two.

There’s a distinctly unfinished air to the project – though, to be fair, it’s early days. The eastbound lane needs to be created from scratch; the westbound extended. At that point, it would hopefully be something TfL would be keen enough to talk about that cyclists start using it in greater numbers – and drivers get the message they should avoid the Euston Road.

The obvious explanation for why TfL is going to all this trouble is that TfL is in charge of the Euston Road, and so can do what it likes there. Building cycle lanes on side nearby roads means working with the boroughs, and that’s inevitably more difficult and time consuming.

But if the long-term plan is to push cyclists via side roads anyway, it’s questionable whether all this disruption is worth it. A segregated cycle lane that stops without warning and leaves you fighting for space with three lanes of buses, lorries, and cabs is a cycle lane that’s of no use at all.

Jonn Elledge was founding editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.