Why? The worst case scenario is no buses ever again. That's only a little worse than what we have now given that hardly anyone uses buses now anyway. It's got to be worth a try.
I realise that you have penchant for rhetorical exaggeration radamafi; but even so, understanding the current state of bus services in the UK requires a rather more realistic factual basis than "hardly anyone uses buses now anyway". There are a lot of people who use buses; indeed in a number of town and city centres in the UK total bus users at peak outnumber total car users. And we know that urban car usage, at peak, is decreasing; and that a high proportion of current urban car users are reluctant, and would switch to an alternative - bikes and/or public transport - if they were confident that those options suited their needs. Hence, as urban car usage has dropped, so (with a lag) bike and public transport usage has been increasing rapidly.
The conundrum is that this major social shift - perhaps the biggest social shift of the past ten years - has largely passed the bus industry by. Overall urban bus use continues to fall (outside London); both in absolute terms and as a proportion of peak period trips. It is reasonable to ask whether the current deregulated structure may have become an inhibition against bus travel taking advantage of the new reality of urban transport? An approach that may have 'worked' in keeping bus transport in being in the years when demand was falling, may now be a barrier to effective functioning in a period when demand may otherwise be expected to have been rising fast.
A few factual observations:
- Bus travel remains far the most common mode of urban public transport outside London; even in cities with good access to alternative modes - rail, metro, tram. Moreover, although bus usage has fallen, there is little evidence for bus usage dropping more in cities with good access to alternative modes; the expansion of light rail in such cities as Nottingham and Manchester has been at the expense of car and train use, not bus use.
- Bus capacity is seriously under-used; whereas light rail systems at peak typically run with loadings of 70% or more at peak periods (with the majority of peak period users consequently travelling standing-up); bus loadings, over peak periods, rarely average more than 40%. If we take a 'reasonable' door-to door commute time as being 45 minutes; then almost every urban bus system in the UK could satisfy demand by doubling its current patronage, without increasing services at all - simply from commuters who could 'reasonably' travel to work by bus, but who nevertheless still drive. Which would remove more than a third of current car traffic from the roads, and solve urban congestion problems at a stroke.
- There are a number of exceptions to the general pattern of failure of bus services to increase patronage. Especially in more affluent parts of Southern England and along the South Coast, but also in some major towns and cities - Bristol, Bath, Oxford, Cambridge, Reading, Nottingham. Often - though not always - these are characterised by the local market not having fallen under the control of one of the big conglomerate operators. There are also particular spectacular examples of patronage growth associated with major public investment in busways; Cambridgeshire, Leigh-Salford-Manchester, Fareham-Gosport, Luton-Dunstable. In some places these have used former rail alignments, in others busways have been taken out of major radial routes. Characteristically these have all faced strident opposition; which has managed to progress from "Its a waste of money as no one will use it"; to "Its a waste of money as its always too crowded; clogging up local roads with the parked cars of bus users." And there have been particular examples of high patronage growth in longer distance commuter bus services with enhanced quality provision - Cityzap, Service 36, Red Express, Witch Way.
It appears to a number of observers (and me), that the market of bus travel is being split - although of course both markets may often travel on the same buses. For my own convenience, I tend to find that the label 'Bus Rapid Transit' can apply to the services that have shown big patronage growth - though these tend not to have many of the characteristics of BRT in its classic forms in Latin America and Europe. But what we find is that the features that attract riders to UK-type BRT are often opposite to those that attract riders to continuing local bus services. Local bus users like to be able to buy tickets from the driver (and to receive change), BRT users prefer universal pre-ticketing with TVMs at stops, or through smartphone apps; local users value frequent stops close to home, BRT users prefer to "walk further to travel faster"; local users don't mind standing, BRT users expect to sit in a comfortable seat with leg-room and space to keep connected; local users value discounted weekly tickets for a journey, BRT users value multi-mode tickets that allow connect across services at no extra cost.
The problem is that the current deregulated system is designed to encourage operators to compete with one another,and with other modes, and to prevent public authorities running and profiting from bus provision;. But the BRT services almost always require major public investment - investment that is easily justified in Benefit Cost terms, given the massive increase in road user capacity that can follow. But such major investment really needs a payback - public agencies need to be able to monetise some of the value and profitability of the expanded demand, so as to plough this back into further expansion. Which is exactly what the deregulation legislation was set up to prevent.
