238

dl.iranmohandes.comdl.iranmohandes.com/ebook/civil-architecture/4/Public Transport Its... · Public Transport Public Transport covers the planning of all public transport systems

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    22

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • patrickdm200155c7coverv05b.jpg

  • Public Transport

    Public Transport covers the planning of all public transport systems (bus, coach,rail, taxi and domestic air travel) in Britain and other countries with similarsystems. The term ‘planning’ is used both in the context of local authority andcentral government roles and in the work done by transport operators (forexample, network structures, vehicle type selection).

    The emphasis is primarily on the urban and regional market, with issues spe-cific to long-distance and rural sectors considered separately. Material has beenextensively updated to reflect changes in policy, recent statistical data, andresearch outcomes. A new chapter has been added on the role of service qualityand marketing. A concluding chapter examines the broader long-term policyissues.

    Public Transport serves as a textbook for both specialist students in transportand those in related fields, such as planning, geography, civil engineering andbusiness studies who are taking optional courses in transport. It is also of inter-est to transport planners in local authorities and consultancies and managers intransport operations.

    Peter White is Professor of Public Transport Systems, Department of TransportStudies, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, University ofWestminster, UK.

  • The Natural and Built Environment SeriesEditor: Professor John Glasson Oxford Brookes University

    Introduction to Rural PlanningNick Gallent, Meri Juntti, Sue Kiddand Dave Shaw

    Regional PlanningJohn Glasson and Tim Marshall

    Strategic Planning for RegionalDevelopmentHarry T. Dimitriou and RobinThompson

    Introduction to Environmental ImpactAssessmentJohn Glasson, Riki Therivel andAndrew Chadwick

    Methods of Environmental ImpactAssessmentPeter Morris and Riki Therivel

    Public TransportPeter White

    Urban Planning and Real EstateDevelopmentJohn Ratcliffe and Michael Stubbs

    Landscape Planning and EnvironmentalImpact DesignTom Turner

    Controlling DevelopmentPhilip Booth

    Partnership Agencies in British UrbanPolicyNicholas Bailey, Alison Barker andKelvin MacDonald

    Development ControlKeith Thomas

  • Public TransportIts planning, management andoperationFifth Edition

    Peter White

  • Fifth edition published 2009by Routledge2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

    Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016

    Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

    © 2009 Peter White

    All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproducedor utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission inwriting from the publishers.

    The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard tothe accuracy of the information contained in this book and cannot acceptany legal responsibility or liability for any efforts or omissions that may bemade.

    Every effort has been made to contact and acknowledge copyright owners,but the author and publisher would be pleased to have any errors oromissions brought to their attention so that corrections may be publishedat a later printing.

    British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

    Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataWhite, Peter, 1948-Public transport : its planning, management and operation / Peter White.p. cm. – (The natural and built environment series)Includes bibliographical references and index.1. Transportation–Great Britain. 2. Transportation and state–GreatBritain. I. Title. HE243.A2W48 2008388.068�4–dc22 2008011336

    ISBN10: 0-415-44531-0 (hbk)ISBN10: 0-415-44530-2 (pbk)ISBN10: 0-203-89228-3 (ebk)

    ISBN13: 978-0-415-44531-3 (hbk)ISBN13: 978-0-415-44530-6 (pbk)ISBN13: 978-0-203-89228-2 (ebk)

    This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.

    “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’scollection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

    ISBN 0-203-89228-3 Master e-book ISBN

  • Contents

    Illustrations viiiPreface xAcknowledgements xi

    1 Organization and control of transport in the British Isles 1Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1The Irish Republic 5Public spending in Great Britain 6The operating industries in the United Kingdom 8Regulation 12Other organizations 14

    2 The role of public transport 17The overall pattern 17Definitions 17Comparisons of bus and rail trip rates with the NTS 21Composition of the rail and bus markets 21Use of the ‘trips per head’ measure 22Variations in public transport use by age and sex 23Variations by time of day, and day of week 24The ‘market gearing’ concept 26The journey to work 27Other journey purposes 29Trip chaining 30Time spent in travel 30Changes in individuals’ travel over time 31Taxis and private hire cars 32Public transport and car use 33The London case 34Aggregate forecasting of public transport demand 35

  • Longer-term elasticities 39Policy implications 40

    3 Service quality and marketing 43Limitations of aggregate demand forecasting 43Current service quality indicators 45User perception of service quality 48Quantifying the effects of service quality on ridership 49Marketing and quality initiatives by bus operators 50Marketing to the individual customer 53Conclusions 55

    4 The technology of bus and coach systems 57Design of the vehicle 57Buses on road networks 68Conclusion 76

    5 Urban railways and rapid transit systems 78Early developments 78Types of urban rail system 79Basic system characteristics 81Current rail developments in Britain 93

    6 Network planning 97Typical structures 97Urban form and land use 98Design of public transport networks 100Park-and-ride (P&R) 113Public transport in low-density situations 116Appendix: a technique for illustrating optimal interstation spacing 117

    7 Costing and cost allocation methods 121The structure of costs 121Cost allocation methods 127Rail cost allocation 131Examples of average costs 134Statistical models of cost structures 135Concluding observations 136

    8 Pricing theory and practice 137Basic concepts 137

    vi Contents

  • Peak costing 140Price elasticity 142The form of the demand curve, and its implications 146The travelcard concept 150Is there a case for premium pricing? 154Fare collection methods 155Conclusion 158

    9 Rural public transport 160Defining ‘rural’ 160Improving ‘conventional’ public transport 168Alternative ‘solutions’ to the rural transport problem 170Impact of the 1985 Transport Act and subsequent policies 174Concluding observations 176

    10 Intercity public transport 178Introduction 178The present long-distance market in Britain 178Current patterns and recent trends within each mode 184Developments in technology 195The current network structure and policy issues 201Some concluding observations 202

    11 Some current policy issues 205Long-run demand issues 205Population trends 205Car ownership 206Has a fundamental change occurred in the relationship between public

    transport use and established causal factors? 206Substitution for travel 207Capacity constraints 208Separation of infrastructure and operations 209Issues in pricing policy 210Issues in specific sectors 211The role of small vehicles 212Trip rates in major conurbations 212Environmental and sustainability issues 214Some concluding thoughts 215

    Index 217

    Contents vii

  • Illustrations

    Figures

    4.1 Energy consumption of an urban bus, related to stop spacing.Consumption during acceleration and engine idling increases with the number of stops per kilometre 61

    4.2 Effect of junction delays on bus service regularity 704.3 Bus station layouts 735.1 Time–distance graph of Birmingham–Coventry line 835.2 Energy consumption curves for urban rail services 875.3 Block section signalling 906.1 Optimal stop spacing to minimize total travel time 1026.2 Break-even chart for bus and rail services in an urban corridor 1127.1 Peak cost allocation; the shaded areas represent costs allocated

    wholly to the peak 1328.1 Graduated fare scales 1398.2 Break-even distance for peak-only operations 1418.3 A demand curve, and scope for price discrimination 1478.4 An S-shaped demand curve, around a threshold value 1489.1 The rural bus network in northeast Lincolnshire and south

    Humberside in 2007 1659.2 The rural bus network in northeast Lincolnshire and south

    Humberside in 1985 16610.1 Ticket purchase period against method of ticket purchase 181

    Tables

    1.1 Public transport current spending by central government and local authorities in Great Britain, 2005–6 6

    2.1 Public transport use in Britain 202.2 A notional example of ‘market gearing’ 262.3 Frequency of local bus use by size of settlement, 2005 272.4 Usual means of travel to work by usual place of work, 2005 282.5 Composition of the market for each mode, by journey purpose, 2005 29

  • 2.6 Relationships between car ownership and public transport use, perperson per year, 2005 34

    6.1 Typical net residential densities 986.2 Percentage of population within walking time shown 1047.1 An example of the CIPFA bus cost structure 1227.2 Effects of varying assumptions on vehicle replacement and capital

    structure, for a small bus company 1257.3 Rural and urban cost allocation example 1277.4 Examples of public transport systems’ unit costs, 2003 13410.1 Modal split of long-distance journeys in Britain, 2004–6 17910.2 Long-distance journeys in Britain by journey purpose, 2004–6 18010.3 Coach and rail shares of the land passenger transport market in Britain

    (flows to and from the South East Region, or Heathrow Airport) 18310.4 Domestic air traffic in Britain, 1999–2006 18510.5 Motor vehicle traffic, 1995–2005 19110.6 Passenger travel on national railways, 1994/5–2005/6 192

    Illustrations ix

  • Preface

    This is the fifth edition of a textbook which first appeared under the same title in1976. The basic structure has been retained through successive editions, takingpublic transport in the British Isles as the main focus. In most chapters, theemphasis is primarily on the urban and regional market, with issues specific tolong-distance and rural sectors considered separately. Material has been exten-sively updated to reflect changes in policy, recent statistical data and research out-comes. In contrast to previous editions, a new chapter has been added on the roleof service quality and marketing, which now receives much more attention, andless space has been devoted to policy matters, which are liable to short-termchange. A concluding chapter examines the broader long-term policy issues.

    The contents of this book are related closely to research and teaching activ-ity at the University of Westminster, notably within the Master of Science inTransport Planning and Management, and research undertaken at the Univer-sity is referred to at many points (although the text is also appropriate for awider readership).

    Inevitably, in covering a wide range of subjects, the space devoted to any onetopic is necessarily brief, and some may find their own area of interest coveredto only a limited extent. However, where possible, further reading is indicatedthrough the sources cited.

    Since the first edition, the Internet has emerged as major source of material.For certain topics, readers are advised to use relevant websites, notably those ofthe Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk) and of the ‘Demand for PublicTransport’ study, published by TRL in 2004 (www.demandforpublictransport.co.uk.).

    When the first edition of this book was published, the prospects for publictransport in Britain could be seen as gloomy – ridership was falling and net-works contracting. Today, the problem for rail systems is how to provide suffi-cient capacity to cope with peak demand, and while the bus picture is moremixed, strong ridership growth has occurred in a number of areas. The benefitsof concentrated activity in urban areas are recognized, and energy and environ-mental issues could also favour a wider role for public transport in the future.

    Peter White

  • Acknowledgements

    I would like to acknowledge in particular the assistance of academic andresearch colleagues at the University of Westminster in specific parts of thisbook relevant to their specialist areas: Nigel Dennis, Sophie Tyler, SarahWixey, Paula Bagchi and Austin Smyth.

    Statistics collected by agencies such as the Department for Transport andTransport for London have proved particularly useful, and I would like to thankstaff at the DfT for special tabulations of National Travel Survey data.

  • 1 Organization and control oftransport in the British Isles

    Within this chapter, the organizations and legislation relevant to public transportin the British Isles are outlined. The situation described is that applying fromsummer 2008. The overall framework is that provided under the European Union– influencing, for example, the structures for railway finances and safety regulation.Coverage is given of the structure in the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland, and of the Irish Republic. The term ‘Great Britain’, when usedseparately, refers to the sum of England, Scotland and Wales.

    Great Britain and Northern Ireland

    Central government

    Following devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament, the NorthernIreland Assembly and the Welsh and Greater London Assemblies, considerablevariation exists between different regions of the UK. Below, the situationapplicable in the UK and England as a whole is described first, followed bynational and regional variations.

    Overall responsibility for transport policy is placed under the Department forTransport (DfT), whose statistical publications are quoted extensively in thisbook. Some related local government and planning functions are placed underthe Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The DfT’sscope covers all modes, including shipping and aviation.

    Both departments are headed by a Secretary of State, with cabinet rank,assisted by several Ministers of State. Their power is exercised directly inEngland, and within Wales through the Welsh Assembly, although generallyunder similar legislation. Within Scotland, the Scottish Government, under aMinister of the Scottish Parliament, covers much of the DfT’s role, with sepa-rately determined legislation on certain aspects, such as the Transport (Scot-land) Act 2005. The self-governing Channel Islands and Isle of Man determinetheir own local policies, but are strongly influenced by central government inaviation and shipping policy.

    The DfT determines overall policy, but management of assets still in thepublic sector is mainly exercised through agencies such as the Highways Agency

  • (HA), responsible for the construction and maintenance of the trunk-road andmotorway network, whose role has been broadened to cover management of thesystem use – for example, through introduction of bus and coach priority lanes.Others include the Vehicle Operator and Safety Agency (VOSA), responsiblefor annual inspection and other safety controls over road vehicles.

    Within the DfT, one Minister and two Parliamentary Under-Secretariesassist the Secretary of State. Their responsibilities are not rigidly determined bylaw and may vary as individual appointments change, but typically compriseposts covering public transport, transport in London, national policy on roadsand traffic, and aviation and shipping. The civil service staff of the departmentis headed by a Permanent Secretary, responsible to whom are various DirectorsGeneral, each in turn responsible for a specialist sector (whose definitions andresponsibilities change from time to time).

    A quasi-independent role is played by the Commission for Integrated Trans-port (CfIT), which provides inputs to government policy and responses to itsimplementation. Its role in the 1998 Transport White Paper was defined as ‘toprovide independent advice to Government on the implementation of integ-rated transport policy, to monitor developments across transport, environment,health and other sectors and review progress toward meeting our objectives’.

    Two other government departments also have substantial influence on trans-port policy. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform,DfBERR (formerly the Department for Trade and Industry, DTI) is involved incertain aspects of industrial strategy and the operation of competition policy,exercised through the Competition Commission, and the Office of Fair Trading(OFT). This aspect has gained increasing importance in the transport sectorsince deregulation of local bus services.

    The Treasury is responsible for overall allocation of expenditures betweendepartments, fiscal policy such as fuel duty, and taxation of ‘company car’ bene-fits. The role of financial control has become particularly strong in the transportsector in recent years and tends to determine other aspects of policy.

    Local government

    Two types of structure exist:

    1 Single-tier, or ‘unitary’, authorities. These cover all of Wales and Scotland,and some parts of England. They have responsibility for all functions belowregional level. Examples include Cardiff, Edinburgh, Plymouth and EastYorkshire.

    2 Traditional ‘two-tier’ authorities. Most parts of England are placed undercounty councils (sometimes known as the ‘shires’). Examples includeSurrey and Norfolk.

    Despite the creation of some further unitary authorities in England, a mixedpattern is likely to remain.

    2 Organization of transport in the British Isles

  • Both unitaries and counties are highway and transportation authorities,being directly responsible for local road maintenance and construction (apartfrom motorways and trunk roads, which are placed under the HighwaysAgency). They provide support for non-commercial bus services, usuallythrough seeking tenders for such operations. They have a role in the promotionof public transport which may involve provision of comprehensive timetableinformation. As education authorities, they may spend large sums on schooltransport (often exceeding direct support to public transport) in order to fulfiltheir statutory duties stemming originally from the Education Act of 1944 (dis-cussed further in Chapter 10). A positive role in stimulating rail use is oftenadopted, albeit rarely with major responsibility for meeting operating losses, butincluding, for example, re-opening of rural stations.

    Within the two-tier system, the districts typically have populations of 50,000to 200,000 and each is based on a small to medium-sized town, but also includ-ing some larger centres. Districts are currently responsible for funding conces-sionary fares for the elderly and disabled, although the level of concession is inany case determined nationally (free travel except in the morning peak Mondayto Friday, with only minor local variations). Discretionary powers exist to fundchild fares as a concession, but this is largely confined to the main urban areas.Parking is generally managed at district level. Districts are also the licensingbodies for taxis and private hire cars.

    The remaining bus operations in public ownership are provided throughunitary or district councils. Counties do not operate services directly (except, ina few cases, some school buses, for example in Norfolk).

    Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, districts or unitaries may also createSpecial Parking Areas (SPAs), in which they take over responsibility for on-street parking control from wardens controlled by the police. From July 1994,this power has been used by all London Boroughs (LBs) and has been applied insome other urban areas outside London.

    The structure within England

    Within the major conurbations in England, a ‘single-tier’ system of localgovernment exists. In the six metropolitan regions (West Midlands, Merseyside,Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear),local government is provided through metropolitan district councils (36 in all),undertaking almost all highways and planning functions. Under the TransportAct 1968, Passenger Transport Authorities (PTAs) were set up in these sixregions. These took over the existing municipal bus operators and also acquireda general responsibility for the integration and planning of public transport as awhole in their areas. Following the abolition of the metropolitan counties in1986, the PTAs became bodies composed of elected members from districtcouncils in their areas. They are also dependent upon transfers from districtbudgets for their financing, together with central government grants. They maygain wider powers under the Local Transport Bill, currently before Parliament.

    Organization of transport in the British Isles 3

  • Within each PTA area, day-to-day responsibility for its public transport roleis placed upon the Passenger Transport Executive (PTE), a body of professionalmanagers. The PTEs are responsible for the provision of tendered bus servicesand concessionary fares. They also play a major role in providing comprehen-sive passenger information systems, provision of school transport, coordinatedticketing arrangements (such as multi-operator travelcards), infrastructureinvestment (notably interchanges) and the planning, construction and financ-ing of light rail systems such as those in Manchester and Sheffield.

    A similar body, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT), covers equival-ent functions in Strathclyde, the largest of the Scottish conurbations, coveringGlasgow and the surrounding region. It also operates a small undergroundrailway. One other PTE, Tyne and Wear, runs a larger system, the local Metro.

    Other conurbation-wide matters (such as certain aspects of highways policy)may be handled by ad hoc coordinating bodies covering each metropolitan areaas a whole.

    Another feature of the governmental structure in England is the role ofregional assemblies (such as that for the South East), but this has been largelyan advisory function, albeit increasingly involved in setting priorities for invest-ment spending. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have now acceded tothis role. However, central government regional planning guidance (RPG) pro-vides general advice on land-use and transport planning, and Regional Trans-port Strategies (RTSs) have been developed.

    The devolved regions

    In London, the Greater London Authority (GLA), together with the directly-elected Mayor, controls strategic transport and planning policy, with a lower tierof some 32 London Boroughs (plus the Corporation of the City of London)responsible for functions such as parking and traffic management. The Mayor is,or has powers to appoint, the chair of Transport for London (TfL) which controlsmost aspects of public transport, including buses, the Underground (albeit withinfrastructure maintenance and renewal handled through the private sector ‘infra-cos’, in line with central government policy), taxis and river services. It acts as thelicensing body for taxis and private hire vehicles (‘minicabs’). TfL’s street-management division is also responsible for the strategic London Road Network(covering roads that would typically be the responsibility of the HA in otherareas), including the ‘Red Routes’ on which stricter traffic control is applied.

    Within Wales, influence on transport policy is exercised by the NationalAssembly for Wales (NAfW) – for example, it extended free concessionarytravel to all of pensionable age as a national scheme, ahead of similar develop-ments in England. Overall policy and structure is similar to that found inEngland. A number of consortia have been set up by adjacent unitary authori-ties to handle common issues such as bus service tendering, for example. Underthe Transport (Wales) Act of 2006 and the Railways Act 2005, wider powershave been given to the Assembly in respect of rail, covering responsibility for

    4 Organization of transport in the British Isles

  • financial management of the Wales and Borders franchise. The Assembly’s RailUnit works with operators and Network Rail (NR) to enhance services in theregion. Overall transport policy is the responsibility for the Minister forEconomy and Transport.

    Within Scotland, the Parliament exercises a greater role, having its own leg-islation (the Transport (Scotland) Acts of 2001 and 2005) and correspondingpowers. This differs in some respects from that applicable in England and Wales– for example, within bus ‘quality partnerships’ (agreements between operatorsand local authorities to enhance services), fare levels and minimum service fre-quencies can be specified. A Minister for Enterprise, Transport and LifelongLearning occupies a role equivalent to the Secretary of State and Ministers inEngland and Wales. The Parliament is also responsible for the rail franchisingprocess (almost all services within Scotland being operated by the ‘Scotrail’franchise), under powers delegated by the Railways Act 2005.

    The Scottish Government exercises its transport function largely throughthe agency ‘Transport Scotland’, which is responsible for trunk roads, majornew road and public transport infrastructure, the national concessionary faresscheme, travel information systems and monitoring the rail franchise. Underthe 2005 Act, a set of statutory regional partnerships has been set up, someseven in all, through which unitary authorities have developed transport strat-egies and to which they may cede some of their transport powers, although forthe present most funding passes directly to the unitary authorities.

    Within Northern Ireland, the Legislative Assembly Parliament determinespolicy, exercised through the Executive. A minister is responsible for theDepartment for Regional Development (DRD) which handles all internaltransport planning and policy, except for some functions under the Departmentof Environment (NI) in road safety and vehicle licensing.

    In Northern Ireland, there are some 26 district councils, but these havealmost no role in transport at present; however, regrouping into seven largercouncils with some transport powers is proposed.

    The Irish Republic

    Within the Irish Republic, transport policy is exercised primarily through theDepartment of Transport and the Marine, covering all modes, including airand shipping. Traditionally, the major role in public transport has been thatof Coras Iompair Eireann (CIE), a semi-state body, transformed through anAct of 1986 into a holding company controlling the national rail system(Ianrodd Eireann, IE), plus bus networks in Dublin (Dublin Bus, Bus AthaCliath), and of regional/long-distance services (Bus Eireann). Urban rail ser-vices within the Dublin area are provided principally through the DARToperations of IE, and the LUAS light rail initiated by the Rail ProcurementAgency (RPA).

    Within the Dublin city region, a Dublin Transportation Authority (DTA)has been announced. Some form of competitive franchising of bus services on a

    Organization of transport in the British Isles 5

  • pattern broadly similar to that elsewhere in Europe (such as London andCopenhagen) has been mooted.

    Independent bus and coach operators play a growing role in school, tour andexpress services, which is likely to increase.

    The extension of nationwide free concessionary travel for pensioners formsan interesting example of diffusion, having existed for many years in GreaterLondon and the Irish Republic, then being adopted in Northern Ireland, subse-quently Wales and Scotland, and finally England.

    Public spending in Great Britain

    Although the majority of expenditure on transport is that incurred by privateindividuals in running of cars and fares paid to public transport operators, publicfinance plays a major role. The principal categories of current public expendi-ture in Great Britain in 2005–6 are identified in Table 1.1.

    It will be seen that the expenditure via local authorities is dominated bylocal bus service support at over £1,000 million. The ‘bus service support’ figure

    6 Organization of transport in the British Isles

    Table 1.1 Public transport current spending by central government and local authoritiesin Great Britain, 2005–6

    Local authorities – current spending £ million

    PTE spending on rail services 330*Concessionary fare compensation

    London 187English PTEs 215rest of England 144**Wales 43**Scotland 95

    Local bus service support (total) 1,029of which London 638English PTEs 118Rest of England 201Wales 27Scotland 45

    Central government – current spendingBus Service Operator Grant 377Net payments to franchised rail operators 1,038Direct payment to Network Rail 1,984

    Sources: Concessionary fares and local bus service support: Department for Transport, Public Trans-port Statistics Bulletin GB: 2006 Edition Supplement, September 2006, Tables 2 and 3; BSOG:Transport Statistics Great Britain 2006 edition, Table 1.15; rail spending: National Rail Trends Year-book 2006–2007, Table 6.2b. Office of Rail Regulation, 2007.

    Notes* Comprises spending by English PTAs, DfT grants to Merseytravel, and Scottish Executive

    expenditure in Strathclyde.** Buses only.

  • represents the total relevant spending by local authorities (including TfL andPTEs), i.e. in addition to payments for tendered services provided by bus oper-ators, it covers expenditure by the authorities themselves on the tenderingprocess, passenger information and historic debts. It also includes grants forrural services. The total has risen rapidly in recent years, mainly due to muchhigher spending in London.

    Concessionary fares compensation, mainly for bus use, comprised £700million, which rose to over £900 million in 2006/7 following provision of freetravel for all those aged 60 and over within each area within England fromApril 2006. It will rise further following extension of such travel throughout thewhole of England from April 2008. The other main element via local authori-ties is the support for rail services in PTE areas (the latter, however, implies amuch higher expenditure per rail-passenger trip given the volumes involved).

    ‘School transport’ is not usually classified within transport expenditure assuch, but represents a very large sum of approximately £1,000 million, and inmany rural counties or unitaries is much greater than other types of publictransport expenditure.

    The central government element is dominated by support to the passengerrail system via the DfT (which is additional to that via the PTEs), together withthe Bus Service Operator Grant (BSOG), which is a rebate of 80 per cent of thefuel duty that would otherwise be paid by operators of local bus services – ineffect, a lower rate of tax (reducing operating costs by about 10 per cent) ratherthan additional public expenditure as such.

    Central government rail spending principally comprises payments to fran-chised train-operating companies, but there has been very rapid growth indirect payments to Network Rail, a semi-public body (whose loans are guaran-teed by the state) which has become increasingly dependent upon these pay-ments, in addition to access charges paid by the operators. Rail-freight operatorsgenerally operate commercially, although track-access costs are subsidized.

    In practice, much of the expenditure handled through local authorities issupported through central government grants. Some of this is specific to certainpurposes (such as the rural bus subsidy grant, discussed further in Chapter 8).However, most current transport expenditure (such as that on most tenderedbus services) comes from the local authority’s budget as a whole, rather thanspecific grants for transport purposes. Central government funding to localauthorities is determined by the Standard Spending Assessment (SSA), whichtakes account of factors such as total population and density of the area. Theproportion of revenue received directly from the tax on local households (the‘council tax’) is relatively small. Rates levied on business (the National Non-Domestic Rate, NNDR) are collected by central government and reallocated tolocal authorities.

    Each London Borough, metropolitan district council, unitary authority and‘shire’ county prepares a Local Transport Plan (LTP) document – known inLondon as a Local Implementation Plan (LIP) – covering in detail the forth-coming financial year, with an outline programme for capital spending over five

    Organization of transport in the British Isles 7

  • years. This is assessed for grant purposes by the DfT, with an approved totalspending announced around the end of the calendar year, effective for the nextfinancial year. Grants for major public transport capital schemes can be madeunder Section 56 of the 1968 Transport Act, under which (subject to an eco-nomic evaluation) central government may contribute a grant of up to 50 percent of the capital cost.

    The operating industries in the United Kingdom

    The bus and coach industry

    The bus and coach industry comprises six main segments:

    1 The major private sector groups

    Following deregulation and privatization in the 1980s and early 1990s, amarked consolidation has taken place. Five major groups (First, Stagecoach,Arriva, National Express and Go Ahead) account for about 70 per cent of theturnover of the industry, providing most urban and regional bus services. Allare also active in the rail-franchise market. National Express, as its name indic-ates, is the principal operator of long-distance coach services in England andWales. All five groups are PLCs, and the first four listed also operate exten-sively outside Britain (principally in North America, though Arriva focuses onEurope). Groups from outside Britain also play a role, notably Transdev ofFrance.

    At the local level, operations are through subsidiary companies such as FirstEastern Counties (covering much of Norfolk and Suffolk) and the Brighton andHove subsidiary of Go Ahead.

    2 Smaller private operators (‘independents’)

    These are firms which have always been in private ownership, generally runningsmall fleets, except for some of the larger coach operators. The typical fleet sizeis around one to ten vehicles. This sector is concentrated mainly in the ‘other’services market (such as tours and school contracts), although the opportunitiesto enter local scheduled services were substantially enlarged by the TransportAct of 1985.

    3 State-owned operations

    In Northern Ireland, Translink is a state-owned operation also responsible forrail services in the province, incorporating Ulsterbus and Citybus, the main busoperators. A few bus services are operated by independents and educationbodies. In the Irish Republic, the role of CIE subsidiaries has already been men-tioned. Private operators are taking a growing share of the market.

    8 Organization of transport in the British Isles

  • 4 London

    Bus services within the area of the Greater London Authority (GLA) aremainly provided under contracts with TfL through its subsidiary London BusServices Ltd. Many of these were once operated directly by London Transport,but its subsidiaries were privatized during 1994, and most subsequently sold onto the major groups mentioned above. In addition, contracted services are pro-vided by independents and regional companies based around Greater London.Through its role as provider of a comprehensive bus network, TfL is able toensure greater stability and comprehensiveness of services than in deregulatedareas of Britain, although possibly with a more rigid approach.

    Some other bus services within, and entering, Greater London, are providedcommercially by private-sector bus and coach operators, notably the ‘commutercoach’ services, licensed under London Service Permits (LSPs) issued by TfL.Where London Local Service Agreements (LLSAs) are made with TfL, thesemay also carry local passengers using the Travelcard and concessionary passtickets. Cross-boundary services, such as Kingston-on-Thames to Epsom, effect-ively operate under both regimes, that of TfL within London, and the deregu-lated framework outside.

    5 Local authority fleets

    Following the Transport Act of 1985, fleets owned by local authorities andPTEs were restructured as ‘arm’s-length’ Passenger Transport Companies(PTCs). Privatization was not mandatory, but was strongly encouraged bycentral government. All seven ex-PTE companies were subsequently priva-tized, and most of those owned by district or regional councils have ceasedtrading or been privatized. One of the remaining local authority-owned com-panies, Blackpool Transport, also runs a tramway. About 13 fleets remainin district or unitary council ownership, the largest being Lothian Buses inEdinburgh.

    6 Express coach services

    Although opened to competition under the Transport Act of 1980, the expresscoach network is dominated by one operator, National Express Ltd, originallypart of the National Bus Company, and initially privatized through a manage-ment buyout in 1988. Subsequently, it was floated as a PLC in 1992 and hasexpanded into other activities such as franchised rail services and coach opera-tions in Spain. The similar Scottish-based ‘Citylink’ network is a joint sub-sidiary of the Delgro group of Singapore and Stagecoach. Very few vehicles areowned by National Express or Citylink as such, and almost all are hired in fromother companies.

    The internal structure of bus and coach companies, apart from informalstructures found in the very smallest concerns, has been traditionally based on a

    Organization of transport in the British Isles 9

  • separation of ‘traffic’ and ‘engineering’ functions, the former encompassing theplanning and operation of services, the latter provision of vehicles to operate them.This was also associated with a centralized structure in which the two functionswere only brought together at the level of senior management. A much moredecentralized approach is now taken, with greater power given to managers of sub-sidiary companies, and to area or depot managers within those companies.

    The railways

    Under the Railways Act of 1993, the nationalized British Rail system was dis-banded and privatized.

    Its passenger services were transferred to 25 Train Operating Companies(TOCs) – for example, South West Trains (a Stagecoach subsidiary), operatingthe network of services from London Waterloo. Subsequently, as franchiseswere re-let, a slight reduction has occurred as areas of coverage have been rede-fined (e.g. the franchise covering all of East Anglia, now operated by asubsidiary of National Express).

    The allocation of franchises, and the financial support most of them needfrom central government, was initially handled by the Office of Passenger RailFranchising (OPRAF), and subsequently under the short-lived Strategic RailAuthority (SRA). Powers have now reverted directly to the DfT, which speci-fies the franchises in somewhat greater detail than its predecessors. In somecases, premiums are paid back to the state, although this has resulted in someproblems as discussed in Chapter 9.

    There are also local franchises within London, through TfL: the DocklandsLight Railway (DLR), which is an example of an integrated franchise coveringboth operations and infrastructure, and from November 2007 the ‘LondonOverground’ franchise covering the East and North London Lines, togetherwith the Euston–Watford service, mostly formerly part of a DfT franchise. Inthis case, Network Rail (see below) remains the infrastructure provider.

    In addition to franchised operations, Eurostar provides services via theChannel Tunnel to Paris, Brussels and beyond, and ‘open-access’ operatorsprovide some additional services competing with the franchised network. Themajor example to date is Hull Trains, a subsidiary of First Group, followed in2007 by Grand Central, operating from Sunderland to London.

    All railway infrastructure (apart from self-contained urban systems), includ-ing track, signalling and stations are the responsibility of Network Rail. Moststations are managed by TOCs but NR runs several of the major stations itself.NR’s costs are covered by charges made to train operators and, to an increasingextent, direct government grants (as shown in Table 1.1).

    From 1994, the then passenger rolling-stock fleet was transferred en bloc tothree rolling-stock leasing companies (ROSCOs), who charge the TOCs for theprovision of stock and remain responsible for overhauls. TOCs may also pur-chase or lease stock directly from other providers, such as manufacturers or newleasing companies.

    10 Organization of transport in the British Isles

  • The rail-freight operations were also privatized. Most are now run by EnglishWelsh and Scottish Railways (EWS), including the major ‘trainload’ (bulkfreight) operations and Railfreight Distribution services. The principal excep-tion is Freightliner, operated by a management buyout company. There are alsosome private freight operations, making use of open-access rights on the railsystem, notably GB Railfreight. Others mainly carry their owning companies’traffic, notably DRS (British Nuclear Fuels).

    Within the six PTA areas, the PTEs are able to establish common fares andservice-level policies for TOC and tendered bus services, but this also results ina substantial financial burden on local budgets (see above) that is not felt bylocal authorities elsewhere. Conversely, funding for TOCs’ services in theLondon area comes through the DfT, although greater coordination with trans-port strategies of TfL is now proposed. This can also be seen in initiatives datingfrom the Greater London Council-era, extension of bus and UndergroundTravelcard to include surface railways within London from 1985, and planningof the ‘Crossrail’ scheme.

    The rail network in Ireland – on the common Irish gauge of 1,600mm,slightly wider than in mainland Britain – is operated in the north by part ofTranslink and in the Republic by Ianrodd Eireann.

    Many preserved steam railways are operated by private companies and semi-voluntary organizations, generally providing seasonal tourist services. Historicalsteam and electric lines on the Isle of Man are owned by its government.

    Sea and air transport

    Following privatization policies in the early 1980s, all of these operations are inthe private sector, except for many smaller airports, some major regional air-ports (notably Manchester) and Caledonian MacBrayne (‘Calmac’) ferries,operating many of the Scottish island services.

    Most operators have shifted towards roll-on/roll-off services for cars, coachesand lorries as their major activity, but also remain important for ‘foot’ passen-gers interchanging from rail and bus services. A large share of the short cross-Channel market is held by Eurotunnel, using its ‘Shuttle’ services to carrylorries, coaches and cars. Other ferries in Britain are operated by numerousprivate companies, some very small.

    Trunk domestic air services are provided by the two largest UK-based carri-ers: British Airways (BA) and BMI (plus its low-cost subsidiary BMI Baby),competing directly on major routes from the London area to Scotland. Othermajor operators in this sector are FlyBe, easyJet and Ryanair. Regional servicesmay be operated by local ‘third-level’ carriers such as Aurigny in the ChannelIslands. Although the UK domestic air scene has experienced the arrival ofmany new small operators under increasingly liberal regulatory policy in recentyears, the market growth has not always been sufficient to support them (seeChapter 9), resulting in a large turnover of small operators on marginal routes.

    Major international airports, including Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted,

    Organization of transport in the British Isles 11

  • Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, are operated by BAA plc, now a subsidiaryof the Spanish group Ferrovial. Many other airports are operated through localauthority companies, such as Manchester, or have now been privatized throughindividual sales, such as that of East Midlands. Minor airports in Scotland arerun by Highlands and Islands Airports (HIA).

    Regulation

    Regulation may be considered in three aspects: quality, quantity and price. Inmany countries they are closely linked, but in Britain very little quantity andprice regulation remains, apart from the effective control over some prices forrail passengers and London-area services by central government and the Mayorof London respectively. Capacity constraints at major airports and on the railnetwork also act as a form of quantity control.

    Quality regulation

    The bus and coach industry

    Quality control of bus and coach operators is exercised through the area TrafficCommissioners (of which there are presently eight) under the Public PassengerVehicles Act 1981. A wider role for them is envisaged under the Local Trans-port Bill 2008. The 1981 Act established a system of ‘operator licensing’ (or ‘O-licensing’), under which a person or company seeking to operate public-servicevehicles has to establish good repute, adequate financial support and satisfactorymaintenance facilities. The term ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) largely corres-ponds to the everyday definition of a bus or coach (there is a minor legal dis-tinction between them; see Chapter 3), except that certain small vehicles of 16seats or fewer and those used other than for public service (such as school busesowned and operated by a local education authority) are excluded. A licensedtaxi ‘plying for hire’ may have up to eight seats, but a vehicle of nine to 16 seatsused in public service (other than with a Minibus Permit or as a communitybus; see Chapter 8) requires a PSV licence.

    The number of buses and coaches that the holder of an operator’s licence ispermitted to run (which may vary according to the quality of maintenance, finan-cial resources, etc.) is specified by the Traffic Commissioner. For each vehicle per-mitted, a disc is issued, which it must display. The commissioners have the powerto revoke an operator’s licence, or change the number of vehicles it covers.

    Each PSV is subject to strict annual inspections, following which a newlicence is issued. A ‘certificate of initial fitness’ is issued to a new vehicle, pro-vided that it meets the standard regulations regarding dimensions, etc. (seeChapter 3). Each driver is required to hold a Passenger Carrying Vehicle(PCV) driving licence, issued following a specialized driving test and medicalexamination.

    The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 is a piece of consolidating legisla-

    12 Organization of transport in the British Isles

  • tion, incorporating the regulatory changes of the 1980 Act and those of the late1970s (such as the Minibus Act 1977), and continues to form the basis of busand coach ‘quality’ regulation.

    The Transport Act of 1985 removed the need to obtain a road servicelicence for a bus or coach service. A distinction is drawn between a ‘local’service – one carrying some or all passengers distances of less than 15 miles(24km) – and all others. For the local service, the proposed route and timetablemust be registered with the Traffic Commissioners at least 56 days before opera-tion is due – for others, not even this process is required. Provided that theperson or organization registering the service is the holder of an operatorlicence, the process is automatic, and objections from other parties are notaccepted. The only restriction on operation is through Traffic Regulation Con-ditions, which on grounds of road safety or congestion may, for example,prevent buses from using certain streets, or picking up at some points, but maynot discriminate between operators. They are used very sparingly in practice.

    Outside London and Northern Ireland, companies determine which servicesthey will operate on a commercial basis. Other services may then be secured bythe local authority under contract, following a competitive bidding procedure.Typically, these are for parts of the day and week (e.g. evening and Sunday ser-vices) rather than entire routes throughout the week, in contrast to the situ-ation within London where contracts normally apply to the entire operationthroughout the week of the services concerned.

    Taxis and private hire vehicles

    Taxi regulation was also changed under the 1985 Act, although not to the sameextent. Quality and quantity control is handled by district or unitary councils,all of whom now exercise powers to license hackney carriages (‘taxis’, i.e. vehi-cles permitted to pick up in the street or at ranks, for separate fares). Mostauthorities also exercise their powers to license ‘private hire vehicles’ (PHVs),i.e. those hired by prior arrangement (such as a telephone request, or throughan office). In London, TfL licenses the hackney carriages (commonly known as‘black cabs’) through a strict system of quality regulation (both for vehicle anddriver), but quantity limits have never applied. Private hire vehicles (locallyknown as ‘minicabs’) are also subject to a basic quality licensing system, butprices remain totally uncontrolled.

    Railways

    Regulation of rail safety and related matters is exercised through the Office ofRail Regulation (ORR). Investigation of all major accidents is handled by theRail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB).

    The ORR is also responsible for regulating the privatized passenger railway,including matters such as charges made to operators by Network Rail, and open-access arrangements.

    Organization of transport in the British Isles 13

  • Quantity and price regulation

    Road

    The 1985 Transport Act discouraged the application of quantity restrictions ontaxi services (i.e. limiting the total number of taxis, or ‘plates’, in each district’sarea), but up to one-third of district councils do retain this power, subject toshowing that ‘no significant un-met need’ would remain as a result. Powers toset fares for taxis remain. Shared taxi operation (splitting the costs of a hiredjourney between individual passengers) and ‘taxibus’ operation (running avehicle of eight seats or fewer on a timetabled service at advertised individualfares) were also legalized, but with little impact nationally.

    The local bus deregulation of the 1985 Act does not apply to the Londonarea (i.e. that covered by the GLA, within which TfL is the licensing body),nor to Northern Ireland.

    Air

    Under EU legislation of 1993 (affecting international traffic within the Union)and 1997 (affecting domestic traffic), any European carrier can operate anyshort-haul route. Both quality and quantity control of civil air transport areexercised through the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), a body appointed bycentral government. The general framework of regulation was set out in theCivil Aviation Act 1971, modified in subsequent Acts. Financial and technicalregulations are handled separately within the CAA. However, much of the reg-ulatory policy has been determined by government directives to the CAA, andthe Authority’s own policy statements. From September 1985, the controls overdomestic air fares were largely removed. Domestic air service regulationthus became increasingly liberalized, although not to the same extent as roadtransport.

    Slots at congested airports could be seen as the principal barrier to entry.

    Other organizations

    Other organizations involved in the public transport industry include tradeunions, user groups and professional institutions.

    User groups

    Passengers’ interests are represented both by statutory and independent groups.The regional rail passengers’ committees report to the national Rail Passengers’Council (known as Passenger Focus), which submits an annual report to theSecretary of State.

    In the London region (defined more broadly than the GLA area), LondonTravelWatch represents the interests of users of TfL, TOCs and other public

    14 Organization of transport in the British Isles

  • transport services. It is the only statutory consumers’ committee with respons-ibility for bus, river and taxi, as well as rail, services.

    A number of local consumers’ committees and user groups have been set up,such as that in Merseyside. Others arise from spontaneous action by consumersthemselves, notably rail users’ associations on routes to London. Paradoxically,these may relate to some of the more prosperous and well-served users.However, Bus Users UK (BUUK) acts as a representative body for that cat-egory. The most poorly served, those in rural areas, find it difficult to organize,in part because facilities are so thin already. More enlightened operators havesought to consult the public on matters such as extensive service revisions,sometimes by calling public meetings.

    Bus-user interests are, however, considered by the Bus Appeals Body, anorganization set up by the bus industry and BUUK, which considers appealsfrom passengers not satisfied with the response from the operator concerned,analogous in its role to London TravelWatch.

    External effects of transport modes have received increasing attention,together with concern about the need to encourage sustainable modes. Nation-ally based pressure groups may combine this interest with a support for publictransport and its users – for example, in seeking to encourage use of publictransport rather than cars in congested cities. They include groups such asFriends of the Earth (FoE) and the Council for the Protection of Rural England(CPRE). The organization Campaign for Better Transport is supported by arange of such organizations, together with the rail trade unions, in seeking toencourage a national policy more favourable to public transport.

    Industry associations and professional institutions

    Interests of road and rail public transport operators are represented nationally bythe Confederation of Passenger Transport UK (CPT). Most members are busand coach operators – from both the private and public sectors – together withurban rail operators such as Sheffield Supertram. Its role within the independ-ent bus and coach sector has become greater in recent years, although manysmall operators are not members. Local coach operators’ associations also repre-sent the interests of the independent sector.

    Within the rail industry, the Association of Train Operating Companies(ATOC) represents the TOCs, with particular roles in allocation of revenueand joint marketing of the network.

    Local government associations concerned with transport matters include theLocal Government Association (LGA), representing both levels of authority inEngland and Wales. In London, interests of the Boroughs in transport arerepresented by London Councils. Within Scotland, the Convention of ScottishLocal Authorities (COSLA) plays a similar role.

    The major professional body is the Chartered Institute of Logistics andTransport (CILT), whose Membership grade (MCILT) is the main qualificationspecific to the transport-operating industry. In the field of highways and

    Organization of transport in the British Isles 15

  • transport planning, a similar role is taken by the Institution of Highways andTransportation (IHT).

    Transport coordinating officers in the county and unitary councils arerepresented by the Association of Transport Coordinating Officers (ATCO),which liaises with other local authority and operator organizations.

    References and suggested reading

    An annual review of the activities of the Department for Transport’s activities is pub-lished each year, as part of the government’s overall expenditure plans. This, andother publications of the DfT, may be accessed through its website www.dft.gov.uk.Similar websites cover other organizations listed in this chapter such as Commissionfor Integrated Transport (www.cfit.gov.uk) and the Office of Rail Regulation (www.rail-reg.gov.uk).

    The law regarding bus and coach operations is extensively described in Croner’s Coachand Bus Operations (Croner Publications Ltd., New Malden, Surrey) in loose-leaf form,updated quarterly.

    Policy issues in transport are covered extensively in many journals, notably Local Trans-port Today and Transit (both fortnightly).

    16 Organization of transport in the British Isles

  • 2 The role of public transport

    The overall pattern

    The role played by public transport in Britain has changed considerably inrecent decades. From what seemed a picture of continuous decline from theearly 1950s to the early 1980s, trends in the rail sector reversed, first onthe Underground and later on the privatized surface-rail system. A growth inthe absolute volume of passenger-kilometres (km) has been followed recently bygrowth in market share. In the case of bus and coach travel, an absolute declinecontinued, but has levelled out in respect of the total passenger-km volume, andmore recently in passenger trips.

    The overall share of motorized domestic passenger-km taken by public trans-port – 12.8 per cent in 20041 – is fairly typical of Western Europe, although wasslightly lower than cases such as France (14.9 per cent), Germany (15.2 percent) and Sweden (16.9 per cent) in that same year (note that these figuresexclude domestic air travel). This was despite higher levels of car ownership inthose countries in that year (463 per 1,000 population in Britain, 503 in France,550 in Germany and 456 in Sweden).2

    Definitions

    For purposes of this book I define ‘public transport’ to include all modes avail-able to the public, irrespective of ownership. In addition to the scheduled ser-vices of bus, coach, domestic air and rail operators, I include taxis, private hirebuses and coaches, and the tour/excursion market served by the coach industry.Provision of school services by hired-in buses and coaches (which may in somecases be restricted to pupils of a specific school or education authority) is alsoincluded.

    Within this scope, the use of public transport may be measured in variousways:

    1. The absolute number of trips, usually as reported by operators, derived fromticket sales. In some cases this gives passenger ‘boardings’ rather than trips assuch, i.e. each time a passenger boards another vehicle or mode a new ticketmay be issued, and hence a new ‘journey’ recorded. In Britain this often applies

  • when different operators are involved: for example a bus feeder journey to anurban railway would be recorded separately from the rail journey itself, eventhough both form part of the same ‘linked trip’ (for example, from home towork). Where greater ticketing integration exists, this problem is less likely tooccur, or operators themselves draw the distinction (for example, between‘voyages’ and ‘déplacements’ in French urban systems).

    For example, in 2002–5, the ratio of ‘boardings’ to ‘stages’ (as defined in theNational Travel Survey – see below) by bus was 1.18 in London and 1.09 in therest of Britain.3 The higher ratio in London partly reflects the more complexnetwork, but also the greater use of concessionary passes and travelcards whichenable users to board the first bus to arrive and then interchange en routewithout financial penalty, rather than wait for a less frequent through service.

    In some cases, operators may produce very little data (for example, for taxiand private hire car use), and household surveys may form the main basis. InBritain, the National Travel Survey (NTS) is the principal source of such data,together with studies in specific urban areas (notably the London Area Trans-port Survey, LATS). By collecting data via households, the NTS can also avoidthe double-counting of trips. A ‘trip’ is defined as a movement between oneactivity and another (e.g. from home to work), a ‘stage’ is that part on a particu-lar mode of transport. This may be further sub-divided (although not usually inthe published data) into ‘boardings’ where more than one vehicle is used withinthe same mode (e.g. two different bus routes).

    The NTS is an exceptionally comprehensive data source, since it covers alldays of the week, and since 1989 has taken the form of a continuous samplesurvey throughout Britain. Within this chapter, urban and local movement isprimarily considered; more detailed consideration of rural and long-distancetravel using NTS data may be found in the appropriate chapters.

    2. The distance travelled, expressed in passenger-km. This may be derived bymultiplying the number of ‘trips’ (howsoever defined) by an average length esti-mated from surveys, either on-vehicle or through household surveys. It isunwise, however, to derive such data from distances paid for, since these willgenerally exceed the distance actually travelled, especially where zonal or flatfares apply.

    3. User expenditure on public transport may also be used as an indicator of theminimum economic benefit derived. This forms a means of distinguishing caseswhere much higher expenditure per kilometre is incurred for higher quality ser-vices (for example, a taxi instead of local bus, or first class instead of standardclass rail travel). However, it does not indicate the total benefit derived by theuser (which would include consumer surplus) and particular care must be takenin assessing changes over time where elasticities are low. For example, a 10 percent real fare increase on an urban network with a short-term price elasticity of–0.4 would produce a drop in demand of 4 per cent and revenue growth ofabout 6 per cent, but the growth in revenue simply reflects a transfer of con-sumer surplus from the remaining users to the operator (not to mention the lossof consumer surplus of those no longer travelling).

    18 The role of public transport

  • 4. These absolute measures may be converted to trip rates per head of popu-lation. In the case of operator-derived annual data, an annual trip rate may beestimated by dividing the total trips reported by an estimate of the catchmentpopulation served (which is not necessarily the same as the administrative dis-trict after which an operator may be named). Where data has been derived froma household survey (such as the NTS, which covers seven consecutive days oftravel), it may be used directly in this form, or expanded to an annual figure(allowing for any seasonal factors at the time of data collection). The ‘trips perhead per annum’ indicator, while crude in some respects, does provide a usefulquick comparison between different areas and countries, in the absence of moredetailed survey information (see further discussion below). Where appropriatedata exists, these rates may also be estimated for different groups in the popu-lation. Examples for buses may be found in Local Transport Plans – comparedwith an average of 65 bus stages per person per year in 2006 from the NTS,noticeably higher examples of trips per head (albeit with some double-counting,as above) are found in London (235), Brighton and Hove (142), Reading (140),and Tyne and Wear PTE (140)4 – note that some relatively small, compactcentres such as Brighton may have trip rates higher than larger conurbations. Inaddition, a high trip rate is found for Lothian Buses (Edinburgh) of about 200.

    Even where the only source is operator ticket-based data, it is nonethelessoften possible to estimate separate rates for passengers on concessionary faresand/or travelcards. Where the number of such cards on issue is known, anaverage rate may likewise be estimated for their users.

    5. Market share may be estimated where data on other modes is available, asin the case for the NTS. It is particularly important to ensure that comparabledefinitions are used, since other modes rarely involve en route interchange inthe same fashion as public transport. The extent to which non-motorized tripsare included is also critical, since when short trips are included they may repre-sent up to about one-third of all journeys (although obviously a much smallerproportion of distance travelled).

    These basic concepts are illustrated in Table 2.1 for Britain, using data fromthe latest National Travel Survey, and annual totals reported by operators.

    It will be noted that the data derived from the NTS generally gives a slightlylower estimate of use of bus and rail services than that derived from operators,especially in respect of trips per head for buses, despite lack of operator-deriveddata for ‘non-local bus’. This is due partly to differences in definition mentionedabove, but also to the coverage of the NTS being more limited – its samplecovers only households resident in Great Britain, and hence omits travel bynon-residents within the country. Certain other categories, such as students inuniversity halls of residence, are also omitted. This may explain some of the dif-ferences found (which are more noticeable in respect of rail travel than for localbus). However, the NTS is the only practicable source of data for taxi trips, inthe absence of any data being reported by the operators themselves.

    The term ‘National Railways’ (or ‘surface railways’) is used to describe theservices provided by the privatized Train Operating Companies running the

    The role of public transport 19

  • network formerly provided by British Rail, and other operators on this infra-structure. ‘Other urban railways’ includes the systems in Glasgow, Tyne andWear and light rail networks such as Manchester.

    Operator data unfortunately gives little information on journey length or trippurpose, and hence in analysing the market in this form, NTS data will be usedas the main source. However, its possible understatement of rail travel should beborne in mind.

    20 The role of public transport

    Table 2.1 Public transport use in Britain: data refer to 2006/7 (financial year) for thosefrom operators, and the calendar year 2006 for the National Travel Survey(NTS) and the aggregate passenger-km by bus and coach.

    Operator data (2005/6) Trips (million) Passenger-km (’000 million)

    Local bus services 4,972 } 50Other bus and coach services n/aNational Railways 1,164 46.5London Underground 1,040 8.0Other urban railways 192 1.1Domestic air services 23 9.9

    Grand totals 7,391 115.5

    Population (2005) 58.85 millionImplied public transport trips/head 126Implied distance/head (km) 1,961

    Data from NTS (2006) Averages per person per year

    Trips Distance (km)

    Local buses 65 476Non-local busa 1 101Railwaysb 24 870Taxi/private hire vehicle 10 84Other public (including light 3 154rail, ferries, air)

    Total 102 1,685

    As a percentage of all travel 9.8% 14.5%(all trip lengths)

    Sources: Transport Statistics Great Britain, 2007 edition, tables 1.1, 2.4, 6.2 and 6.13: National TravelSurvey: 2006, Transport Statistics Bulletin SB(06)30, DfT, September 2007, tables 3.1 and 3.2.

    Notesa Express, excursions, tours and private hire.b Surface rail and London Underground.

  • Comparisons of bus and rail trip rates with the NTS

    The local bus trip total of 4,972 million implies 84 per head per annum onpopulation base of 58.85 million, compared with 65 trips in the NTS. This dif-ference is explained by the ‘boardings’ effect, and the possible omission of somecategories of user from the NTS. The NTS data is now weighted to reflect dif-ferent response rates by type of respondent and time period, which enables abetter match to be produced between its data and that from operator totals thanpreviously. Much of the discrepancy relates to London, a closer match being forthe rest of Britain in aggregate.

    For rail, the differences are larger, the operator-reported data giving a railcombined total of about 41 per head compared with only 24 (plus the light railelement in the ‘other public’ category) in the NTS. This is partly explained bydouble-counting between TOCs in National Railways data, and also foreigntourist use of London Underground and other systems.

    Composition of the rail and bus markets

    It can be seen from Table 2.1 that national railways and the London Under-ground rail networks are of similar size in terms of passenger trips, but that theformer is much greater in terms of passenger-km, owing to the higher averagelength of journey (about 40km, compared with 8km). The average trip lengthby local bus is much shorter at just over 4km.

    Within the total 46,500 million passenger-km on national railways in2006–7, some 15,500 million were made on services of the long-distance TOCs;22,400 million on those of London and South East TOCs (mostly commutinginto London); and 8,600 million on Regional TOCs’ services.5 In terms of pas-senger trips, a large proportion was made on the network focusing on Londonand the South East, 773 million of the 1,164 million total in that year. Rail useis thus highly concentrated in and around the London region, and on the long-distance flows.

    Within the bus and coach industry, the ‘local’ trips, i.e. those on public localscheduled services, are handled largely by the urban and regional subsidiaries ofthe larger groups, while the ‘independent’ sector (of smaller companies, alwaysin private ownership) has predominated in the ‘other’ market, as discussed inChapter 1. The latter is largely composed of school services, together withprivate hire and excursion and tour operations. The express service category –based on the Transport Act 1985 definition of those carrying all their passen-gers a distance of at least 15 miles (24km) measured in a straight line – is afairly small one, around 15–20 million trips. In practice, many long-distanceand commuter coach services also carry intermediate traffic, and are thereforeregistered in the ‘local service’ category.

    The role of public transport 21

  • Use of the ‘trips per head’ measure

    In most cities of the world, the annual public transport trip rate per personvaries between about 80 and 400, with some cases of higher values. Forexample, in Britain one may derive a figure of about 425 in London in 2006–76

    (including all public transport modes, with some double-counting due to inter-change), which is similar to that in Paris. However, in medium-sized conurba-tions of about one to two million people (such as West Yorkshire) the rate isoften less than 150, and in smaller urban areas less than 100. A figure of about200–300 per head is fairly common in large cities, both in Europe and else-where, often associated with extensive rail systems and constraints on car use.

    So far, I have made comments mainly on Britain, where buses form themajority of the public transport system, and hence growing car ownership mayhave direct impacts on ridership. However, Britain is not typical of Europe as awhole. In Western Europe, public transport use has often grown, or leastremained stable, during a phase of further car ownership growth. This is associ-ated in particular with provision of high-quality urban rail and tramway systems,albeit at very high investment levels. There are often much higher levels ofoperating support in other European countries (enabling fares to be kept down).

    High per capita use is particularly associated with German and Swiss cities,notably Zurich. Conversely, some of the growth in French urban systems sincethe 1970s (associated with innovations such as VAL in Lille, for example) wasfrom a lower per capita ridership base.

    These high per capita trip rates have been retained by public transport incities with high-quality public transport systems, despite car ownership levels ofover 300–400 cars per 1,000 people, notably in Germany and Switzerland.

    Among the highest per capita trip rates in the world are Hong Kong andSingapore at about 500 per annum, in this case associated with high levels ofreal income and employment, and good quality public transport systems, butalso with deliberate restraints on car ownership (through high taxation) and use(notably through road pricing in Singapore). High urban density is also anobvious contributory factor.7

    Until the late 1980s, conditions in Eastern Europe were particularlyfavourable to public transport – low car ownership, high subsidies (permittinglow fares), high population density and high economic activity rates. Per capitatrip rates of 500 or more were found in some cities. One should add, however,that this was a highly artificial situation, based on an economic structure thatwas not sustainable and unacceptable constraints on personal freedom.

    The last few years have seen a very abrupt reversal of this situation, in effecta greatly accelerated form of the ‘vicious circle’ of decline as seen in the Britishbus industry. Unemployment has directly reduced the demand for transport, andfares have risen rapidly in real terms as subsidies have been reduced. At thesame time, growing prosperity among those remaining in employment hascaused a very rapid growth in car ownership, often to levels of 0.3 per head oreven above within five to ten years (for example, in Warsaw). There is a danger

    22 The role of public transport

  • that a previously favourable public transport situation could change to one ofexceptionally rapid decline, perhaps to below Western European ridershiplevels. Cities in eastern Länder of Germany showed particularly sharp falls.

    Variations in public transport use by age and sex

    Use of NTS data enables us to indicate variations in public transport use byage and sex, both in terms of absolute trip rates and the percentage share itrepresents.

    Overall, NTS respondents made 1,037 journeys per person per year in 2006,of which about 22 per cent were ‘short’ trips (under 1.6km) mainly on foot orcycle, the remaining 78 per cent over 1.6km, and largely motorized. Althoughmost public transport trips are over 1.6km, there are a small number of shortertrips, especially when feeder journeys are counted separately.

    By age, trip rates and distances travelled8 are highest in the ‘working-age’groups, from 21 to 59, averaging around 1,200 trips and 14,500km per year (byall modes combined). Bus and coach use tends to be concentrated at each endof the age spectrum, representing about 6 per cent of all trips, but up to 15 percent in the age group 17–20 and 12 per cent for 70 and over, although at itslowest in the ‘working-age’ groups 30–59, at only 4 per cent. This is associatedwith car availability, the youngest groups not yet being able to own cars, andthe oldest group never having done so. Conversely, rail use shows much lessvariation, its highest share being in the 21–29 age group (at 5 per cent) andtaxi/private hire car use is fairly well spread over the age groups (an averageshare of 1 per cent, highest at 2 per cent in the 17–29 age group).

    By sex, females tend to make greater use of public transport than males, theiraverage bus and coach share being 7 per cent (compared with 5 per cent formales), with a similar distribution by age category. Rail use is marginally loweramong females than males, but taxi and private hire car use similar. A morenoteworthy difference between males and females is the split between car driverand car passenger use. Whereas for males 48 per cent of all trips are made as cardrivers and 17 per cent as car passengers, for females these proportions are 36per cent and 26 per cent respectively. The differences are less marked in theyounger groups.

    For the public transport operator, there are some worrying implications.While rail and taxi use are fairly well spread by age and sex, bus use is clearlyassociated with lack of access to cars. In the case of the older groups, it is alsoassociated with lower fares due to provision of concessionary travel. In future,older age groups are more likely to retain the car use they now display in theworking-age range.

    There may, however, be some prospect of retaining and increasing publictransport use among the younger age groups, provided that an acceptablequality of service and price can be offered. School and education travel as suchmay be offered at concessionary fares (or free travel in some cases, notablyLondon), but in many instances the full adult fare may be payable from the age

    The role of public transport 23

  • of about 16 (dependent upon operator policy). Greater interest is now beingshown in differential pricing policies aimed at this group, which ease the shiftfrom child rates to full adult pricing. For example, Brighton and Hove (one ofthe most successful bus operators in Britain) sells a card to those attaining theage of 16, entitling them to continue travelling at the child rate for each tripmade. The price of this card is then successively increased at six-month inter-vals up to the eighteenth birthday, after which a quarterly travelcard is sold bydirect mailing at a gradually increasing price. In Paris, RATP has been success-ful in targeting this group with its ‘Imagine R’ annual pass.

    One unfortunate aspect of the perception of bus and coach travel by youngpeople is that much of their experience may be gained on crowded school busjourneys, rather than the moderate load factors typical of off-peak travel.

    Car occupancy levels – in 2006 averaging 1.57 for all car travel – are oftenmuch higher for non-work purposes, especially for leisure, and holidays and daytrips. Hence for these purposes, perceived cost per person by public transportmay compare unfavourably where car running and parking costs are split.Tickets such as the ‘family railcard’ can be seen as a response to this.

    The proportion of public transport trips – both for all purposes, and work –falls gradually with size of urban area, associated with absence of rail services,lower levels of bus service, higher car ownership and fewer constraints oncar use.

    Variations by time of day, and day of week

    The internal structure of the public transport market may also be examined interms of trip-length distribution, and split by time of day and day of week.Within the Monday to Friday ‘working day’, work and education trips tend tobe concentrated at peak periods (around 0800–0930 and 1600–1730). However,they do not usually coincide in both peaks, since the school day is generallyshorter than the adult working day. Where service industry employment pre-dominates, working hours are typically around 0900–1700, causing the morningschool and work peaks to coincide, but there is a spread in the late afternoon, asschools finish around 1530–1600.

    In many areas, it is the school peak which causes almost the entire additionalpeak vehicle demand above a ‘base’ level from 0800 to 1800. This is evident inalmost all smaller towns, and in most cities with a population up to about200,000, such as Plymouth and Southampton. Although journeys to work bypublic transport are substantial, they do not necessarily require more vehicularcapacity (given the higher load factors accepted in the peak) than for shopping,and other trips between the peaks. Even in the largest conurbation bus net-works, it is only on the radial routes to the central area that journeys to workcreate sharp peaks, school travel often causing the peak within suburban areas.

    Rail networks display a much higher peaking ratio, with similar peaks inboth morning and evening, being oriented almost entirely to the centres oflarge cities, and thus the adult work journey.

    24 The role of public transport

  • The ratio of peak to base demand may be somewhat greater in terms ofpassenger-km than passenger trips, since the journeys to work are often muchlonger than local shopping and personal business trips within the suburbanareas. The 2006 NTS shows that for all modes, work commuting trips tend to belonger (at 14.0km average) than those for education (5.3km) or shopping(6.8km), with an ‘all purposes’ average of 11.1km.9 Conversely, in smallertowns employment and shopping may show a similar degree of concentration,leading to similar trip lengths, and hence a good balance of demand during thebase period. This is particularly noticeable in towns of about 50,000 to 150,000people, such as Oxford or Grimsby. Many work trips are by car and much schooltravel is within walking or cycling distance. Shopping is fairly concentrated intown centres, generating good levels of demand on radial networks.

    In recent years, a similar flattening out of the public transport demand ratiobetween peak and inter-peak periods (the latter being the shopping hours fromabout 0930 to 1600) has been observed, as work trips have shifted to the privatecar, and the inter-peak demand has often held up better, owing to the risingproportion of pensioners in the population, often without cars, whose use ofpublic transport is further encouraged by free concessionary travel at such times.The availability of cars within the car-owning household during this period isalso limited by the use of cars for the work trip, creating a potential publictransport market among those based at home during the day, perhaps stimulatedby lower off-peak fares. Improved frequencies have also stimulated non-worktravel to a greater extent than peak demand, aiding this process.

    This flattening out, while occurring within an overall decline in many areas,has thus enabled some improvement in vehicle and crew utilization throughmore efficient scheduling.

    A sharper decline has often occurred in early morning, evening and Sundaypublic transport use, car availability to the household as a whole being muchgreater in the latter two periods, and the first affected by loss of work journeysand changes in working hours. Evening travel has also been hit by the long-term drop in cinema attendance (albeit now reversed), and a reluctance insome areas to go out in the dark for fear of assault. However, very late eveningand all-night bus travel has grown rapidly in London following the revampednetwork introduced during the 1980s and subsequently expanded.

    Since deregulation of local bus services outside London, it has been commonto find that a Monday–Saturday service is registered to run commercially fromabout 0800 to 1800 (even in some low-density areas), while early morning,evening and Sunday services become the responsibility of local authority ten-dered operations. Operators may also be unwilling to register additional peak-period journeys required largely for school travel (see further discussion inChapters 6 and 7).

    Within the week as a whole, Mondays to Fridays display similar demand pat-terns, although Friday is often busier for shopping and has an earlier afternoonpeak, especially where the working week has been reduced by shorter hours onthis day. Saturday continues to be a busy day for shopping trips, especially where

    The role of public transport 25

  • car ownership is low, but has suffered a marked decline in high car-ownershipareas, owing to use of the car by the family as a whole on that day. Withinlarger conurbations, the shopping activity is often concentrated in the sec-ondary centres.

    The ‘market gearing’ concept

    A further general concept which may be introduced at this stage is that of‘market gearing’, i.e. the share of demand which may be attributed to a specificcategory of users. In addition to talking of average trip rates, even broken downby age or sex, for example, we can show that certain categories of individualsproduce a substantial part of total demand. This may be derived from operatorticket data where defined individuals hold certain types of ticket or pass (such asa pensioner concession, or working-age adult travelcard) and the number oftrips attributable to such users can be estimated. Surveys such as the NTS alsoenable such estimates to be made. For example, in Greater London, there areabout 1 million holders of the pensioner ‘Freedom’ pass, and in the wider regiona much larger number of rail/bus travelcard holders. By March 2007, the Oystercard (both as a Freedom Pass and travelcard, and also in ‘prepay’ form)represented about 60 per cent of all Underground and 85 per cent of all busjourneys.10

    A notional example is shown in Table 2.2. In this case, pensioners comprise15 per cent of the population, but 26 per cent of public transport trips. Thehighest ratio is found for adult travelcard users (travelling between home andwork about 200 to 225 days per year) in which 7.5 per cent of the populationproduce 30 per cent of all trips. For the less frequent users, it may be difficult toidentify them separately from ‘non-users’ (since they do not hold separatelyissued cards), and some boundary definition may need to be adopted (e.g. useless than once a month). A shift to smartcard use may assist, in that they willbecome attractive to less frequent users who now pay in cash.

    Although notional, this pattern does compare fairly well with NTS data, asshown in Table 2.3. In addition to the travel diary, a question is sometimesincluded in the NTS on overall frequency of use of different modes. In 2006,

    26 The role of public transport

    Table 2.2 A notional example of ‘market gearing’: city population one million

    Types of person Number (m) Trips per person per year Total trips (m)

    Pensioners 0.15 200 30 (26%)Adult travelcard users 0.075 450 34 (30%)Child pass holders 0.05 400 20 (18%)Other users 0.3 100 30 (26%)Non-users 0.425 0 –Average trip rate 114

    (26%) etc. – share of total trips represented by this category

  • this question showed that 16 per cent of the population travelled by local busthree or more times a week, and a further 11 per cent once or twice a week.However, 44 per cent reported use of local buses ‘less than once a year or never’.For surface rail, the corresponding proportions were 3 per cent, 3 per cent and51 per cent respectively.11 The bus figure of 45 per cent closely matches the‘non-user’ share of 42.5 per cent assumed in Table 2.2. Bear in mind that pub-lished NTS data gives an average for the whole population, including smalltowns and rural areas, and hence the share of the population using public trans-port with high frequency would be less than assumed for a city as above.

    Higher per capita trip rates (averaged over the whole population) may reflecta different distribution within the market gearing pattern – for example, in theCologne region, with about 158 trips per head in 2002, 48 per cent of the popu-lation used public transport daily or several times per week,12 compared with 36per cent for bus use in metropolitan areas in Table 2.3.

    Table 2.3 gives data for 2005, showing that the core ‘once a week’ or moregroup declines as percentage of the population as size of settlement falls. Com-pared with the equivalent figures in 1997–9, the London share is slightly higher,other areas slightly lower.

    The journey to work

    Table 2.4 shows the shares of the journey-to-work market by different modes in2005. Note that the principal mode of transport used is shown – for example, ifsomeone commutes to central London by surface rail, and then makes a shorterride on the Underground to reach their final destination, only surface rail willbe shown as the mode used.

    Overall, buses account for about 9 per cent of all journeys to work and rail

    The role of public transport 27

    Table 2.3 Frequency of local bus use by size of settlement, 2005: Percentages of respondents

    Settlement Frequency of usesize/type

    Once a Less than Once or twice a week or more once a week, year, or less

    more than once or twice a year

    Greater London 51 22 27Metropolitan built-up areas 36 21 43Large urban area (over 250,000) 27 23 51Urb