telstarbox
Established Member
From another thread about Stagecoach in Thanet.
What makes good bus territory these days and are there any areas where operators have 'beaten the odds' by creating an attractive service?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Good bus territory?
- Thread starter telstarbox
- Start date
What makes good bus territory these days and are there any areas where operators have 'beaten the odds' by creating an attractive service?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
izvor
Member
It's an interesting question, and an increasingly difficult one. Much easier in earlier days, when (in residential terms) local authority estates were the most obvious ones, especially those with high-rise housing. With the rise of car ownership, and the sale of council houses, this is not so guaranteed. Linking estates of "semis" with commuter stations used to be a good market too (if heavily peaked) which has mostly vanished. More sprawling suburbia, with less dense housing and longer distances involved, is less lucrative. Many rural villages are now so full of "des-res" incomers that there's no market to be had at all, and the buses disappear when the LA subsidy is removed.
Interurbans can be a good market, especially if there is no parallel train service, or an unattractive one with, say, poorly-sited stations. The Oxford - Bedford - Cambridge corridor (formerly X5) was a successful through route, now split in Bedford it seems. Another really good one is Stagecoach 16 running every 20 minutes between Canterbury and Folkestone, with very little intermediate traffic.
The planned New Towns, mostly in south-east England, were (at least in theory) a gift to bus operators, with fairly dense housing and wide roads. It's interesting to compare how differently these have fared over the years, especially since privatisation and deregulation. The nearest one to me is Crawley which has retained and developed a good network, most recently under Metrobus; this could be described as "ideal bus territory" with a large airport close by and low unemployment. Others have fared less well.
Interurbans can be a good market, especially if there is no parallel train service, or an unattractive one with, say, poorly-sited stations. The Oxford - Bedford - Cambridge corridor (formerly X5) was a successful through route, now split in Bedford it seems. Another really good one is Stagecoach 16 running every 20 minutes between Canterbury and Folkestone, with very little intermediate traffic.
The planned New Towns, mostly in south-east England, were (at least in theory) a gift to bus operators, with fairly dense housing and wide roads. It's interesting to compare how differently these have fared over the years, especially since privatisation and deregulation. The nearest one to me is Crawley which has retained and developed a good network, most recently under Metrobus; this could be described as "ideal bus territory" with a large airport close by and low unemployment. Others have fared less well.
Dwarfer1979
Member
The old hard and fast rules no longer exist and there are multiple factors that can move what used to be good into bad or bad into good. Some of the factors to consider include:
1. Demographics. The old rule was 'poorer' working class neighbourhoods were good territory, that can still hold true (caveated by some of the below) but it is the working, working class areas that are still relatively good, you need people with enough money and reason to travel regularly but not affluent enough to have access to a car per adult so there are some people reliant on the bus at least some of the time and in some areas (again depending on the caveats below) more affluent middle class communities can be just as willing to use the bus in the current circumstances.
2. Town/City Centre Parking. If central parking is abundant and/or relatively cheap it can be difficult for buses to compete on price with the car whilst if it is restricted or expensive (as it is in Oxford centre) then buses thrive as affordable and competitive. This can be battled with bus fares but there is a floor below which operators struggle to get below that some car parking providers can happily get below if not controlled (a car park site on an empty plot that is just a gravel yard and app payment is very cheap to provide at its heart)
3. Peak Traffic and/or bus priorities. If traffic is bad meaning car drivers queue and/or buses have extensive priorities that allow them to compete with the car on travel time from the suburbs to the centre then the bus becomes competitive whilst if there are fast routes for cars that by-pass the areas of housing (and so little use for buses as it makes it harder to serve the actual residential volume) the bus struggles to compete.
4. Housing layout and Urban Plans. If the housing is spread out and/or not well linked it can be difficult for bus operators to get the service close enough to the housing to provide an attractive and convenient service whilst still allowing sufficient volume to be accumulated to pay for a good enough service but this will not penalise cars which only need to provide travel for 1 person to 1 point.
5. A Thriving City Centre vs Out of Town Development. If the economic activity is concentrated, particularly in a single central area, then buses have the chance to build volume and so offer a frequent service which helps attract more users. If the local centre is in decline, whether due to out of town developments or a struggling local economy or a neighbouring town acting as a bigger draw, then volume dips and service frequencies start to fall and as a consequence the service is less attractive. If an Out of Town Development is large enough it can create enough volume to create its own focus (a single supermarket, whether surrounded by a couple of other stores or on its own, doesn't really draw enough concentrated demand to support sufficient routes in from local suburbs to make buses competitive) but even in those cases they tend to be built around car usage with large car parks and being on the edge of town means traffic issues are less so buses will still lose some of the other competitive advantages. Sheffield is a clear example here where the city centre is really struggling due to the proximity of Meadowhall (and to a lesser extent other sites like Crystal Peaks) but all those sites are really designed around cars so where the bus is strongest the market is in decline and where the market is growing the bus is disadvantaged.
6. Quality Delivery. Even in more affluent areas if the service delivery hits the right quality point it can become competitive and what used to be considered bad bus territory can be turned into good territory (more affluent areas are probably more responsive to the environmental arguments as they can afford to consider those things more deeply than poorer communities where just paying your bills are more of a focus) - particularly if this can be aligned with some of the other factors highlighted to push the advantages of buses against the disadvantages of the car. It is difficult to be too specific on things like this as even affluent towns have poorer neighbourhoods which still tend to see the best service levels but places like Harrogate & Oxford show some of these features.
Apart for Point 1, most of these areas are not necessarily hard fixed in-built issues but none of them are exclusively operator reliant, Quality is the main operator leverage but roadside facilities beyond a timetable & flag on a lamp post are reliant on council input (with the caveats around bus fare price vs car parking charges mentioned), but all of them can be mitigated by a good operator or undermined by a bad one (and likewise for councils).
1. Demographics. The old rule was 'poorer' working class neighbourhoods were good territory, that can still hold true (caveated by some of the below) but it is the working, working class areas that are still relatively good, you need people with enough money and reason to travel regularly but not affluent enough to have access to a car per adult so there are some people reliant on the bus at least some of the time and in some areas (again depending on the caveats below) more affluent middle class communities can be just as willing to use the bus in the current circumstances.
2. Town/City Centre Parking. If central parking is abundant and/or relatively cheap it can be difficult for buses to compete on price with the car whilst if it is restricted or expensive (as it is in Oxford centre) then buses thrive as affordable and competitive. This can be battled with bus fares but there is a floor below which operators struggle to get below that some car parking providers can happily get below if not controlled (a car park site on an empty plot that is just a gravel yard and app payment is very cheap to provide at its heart)
3. Peak Traffic and/or bus priorities. If traffic is bad meaning car drivers queue and/or buses have extensive priorities that allow them to compete with the car on travel time from the suburbs to the centre then the bus becomes competitive whilst if there are fast routes for cars that by-pass the areas of housing (and so little use for buses as it makes it harder to serve the actual residential volume) the bus struggles to compete.
4. Housing layout and Urban Plans. If the housing is spread out and/or not well linked it can be difficult for bus operators to get the service close enough to the housing to provide an attractive and convenient service whilst still allowing sufficient volume to be accumulated to pay for a good enough service but this will not penalise cars which only need to provide travel for 1 person to 1 point.
5. A Thriving City Centre vs Out of Town Development. If the economic activity is concentrated, particularly in a single central area, then buses have the chance to build volume and so offer a frequent service which helps attract more users. If the local centre is in decline, whether due to out of town developments or a struggling local economy or a neighbouring town acting as a bigger draw, then volume dips and service frequencies start to fall and as a consequence the service is less attractive. If an Out of Town Development is large enough it can create enough volume to create its own focus (a single supermarket, whether surrounded by a couple of other stores or on its own, doesn't really draw enough concentrated demand to support sufficient routes in from local suburbs to make buses competitive) but even in those cases they tend to be built around car usage with large car parks and being on the edge of town means traffic issues are less so buses will still lose some of the other competitive advantages. Sheffield is a clear example here where the city centre is really struggling due to the proximity of Meadowhall (and to a lesser extent other sites like Crystal Peaks) but all those sites are really designed around cars so where the bus is strongest the market is in decline and where the market is growing the bus is disadvantaged.
6. Quality Delivery. Even in more affluent areas if the service delivery hits the right quality point it can become competitive and what used to be considered bad bus territory can be turned into good territory (more affluent areas are probably more responsive to the environmental arguments as they can afford to consider those things more deeply than poorer communities where just paying your bills are more of a focus) - particularly if this can be aligned with some of the other factors highlighted to push the advantages of buses against the disadvantages of the car. It is difficult to be too specific on things like this as even affluent towns have poorer neighbourhoods which still tend to see the best service levels but places like Harrogate & Oxford show some of these features.
Apart for Point 1, most of these areas are not necessarily hard fixed in-built issues but none of them are exclusively operator reliant, Quality is the main operator leverage but roadside facilities beyond a timetable & flag on a lamp post are reliant on council input (with the caveats around bus fare price vs car parking charges mentioned), but all of them can be mitigated by a good operator or undermined by a bad one (and likewise for councils).
You would assume from an infrastructure perspective that Milton Keynes would be ripe for good bus territory with it's big long free flowing dual carriageway grid system and neighbourhoods all built together in squares meaning you only need a few bus stops, but of course it's not as it's also very good car territory with relatively cheap central parking and lots of it.
I would argue that Nottingham is good bus territory which has a good central city core that doesn't really have any massive out of town centres, has a good radial road network and has been well served by NCT and trentbarton who deliver a great service and a great integrated service with the tram and train network with excellent park & ride facilities and decent value group pricing meaning that when visiting with the family we will always take the tram or bus in to town and leave the car at a P&R site. It also has a healthy uni student population which I think always helps as they will be less likely to have a car.
I would argue that Nottingham is good bus territory which has a good central city core that doesn't really have any massive out of town centres, has a good radial road network and has been well served by NCT and trentbarton who deliver a great service and a great integrated service with the tram and train network with excellent park & ride facilities and decent value group pricing meaning that when visiting with the family we will always take the tram or bus in to town and leave the car at a P&R site. It also has a healthy uni student population which I think always helps as they will be less likely to have a car.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
I think @Dwarfer1979 has made a lot of very accurate points. I've made the point before but those of us on these forums are atypical so we're likely to default to public transport. Most people don't, and don't travel for fun. There has to be a defined reason to travel.
The demographics aspect is something that is crucial. People think poorest in society = good bus territory and that's frankly a myth. If you're long term sick/unemployed, you don't travel if you don't have to. Hence why @Dwarfer1979 makes the distinction about the working working class. As an aside, those traditional "sink" estates that used to rely on buses for links to banks, post offices or shops... benefits direct to bank accounts is one reason to travel gone but also the biggest of those estates now have their own stores, encouraged by councils/governments to move into the area to provide employment. Places like Hartcliffe (Bristol), Seacroft (Leeds) and Buttershaw (Bradford) now have major supermarkets when they wouldn't before and as well as reducing shopping trips, it means there's local employment so people have less need to travel.
Speed of travel (point 3) is also important. Operators are often criticised when buses make circuitous routes in order to replace another service that wouldn't be viable. It's a balance between having two sub-optimal (even loss making routes) and having a good British compromise. I know enthusiasts love an express service but in many places, there's simply not the passenger base. Moreover in many locations, the issue is that buses are simply stuck in the same traffic as cars. So if you have a car and the parking is cheap (see point 2), why wouldn't you use your car if you have one? However, if you can introduce bus priority and reduce car parking provision, then you might start to affect the balance. Of course, local authorities are dependant on car parking as a valuable revenue stream (so you understand their reticence in reducing that) and putting up parking charges is always a bad news story, as is removing parking from outside local shops and businesses. It's a real challenge for councils, let alone operators.
Point 5 is one we all recognise. I know that Thanet (Westwood Cross) was mentioned in the post that started this discussion but I mentioned Bishop Auckland in Co Durham. It was a traditional thriving town centre but when I was there last month... the place looked like the zombie apocalypse had struck. Instead, the council has allowed a major car centric, out of town development to be built over the last 10-15 years that has abstracted most of the retail business. This is not new - it happened first with Merry Hill, effectively gutting Dudley's high street and that was in the mid 1990s which is why PPG13 (planning guidance) was introduced. Of course, if the shopping centres are large enough, they can establish a critical mass such as Meadowhall, Merry Hill or Bluewater to justify their own routes. Most aren't that big and trying to serve them AND a town centre is often difficult and simply fragments passenger flows.
Instead, it's been the more far sighted councils (like Oxford or Portsmouth) that have sought to curb the rise of out of town shopping centres, limit town/city centre parking, improve bus priority and have good partnerships with operators (who also have a duty in all this - let's not forget) and it's that which is driving bus patronage.
Buses work best when you're moving strong major flows and these are predominantly into the town/city centre from the outskirts. Move from that and fragment the flows and it makes it a lot more difficult.
The demographics aspect is something that is crucial. People think poorest in society = good bus territory and that's frankly a myth. If you're long term sick/unemployed, you don't travel if you don't have to. Hence why @Dwarfer1979 makes the distinction about the working working class. As an aside, those traditional "sink" estates that used to rely on buses for links to banks, post offices or shops... benefits direct to bank accounts is one reason to travel gone but also the biggest of those estates now have their own stores, encouraged by councils/governments to move into the area to provide employment. Places like Hartcliffe (Bristol), Seacroft (Leeds) and Buttershaw (Bradford) now have major supermarkets when they wouldn't before and as well as reducing shopping trips, it means there's local employment so people have less need to travel.
Speed of travel (point 3) is also important. Operators are often criticised when buses make circuitous routes in order to replace another service that wouldn't be viable. It's a balance between having two sub-optimal (even loss making routes) and having a good British compromise. I know enthusiasts love an express service but in many places, there's simply not the passenger base. Moreover in many locations, the issue is that buses are simply stuck in the same traffic as cars. So if you have a car and the parking is cheap (see point 2), why wouldn't you use your car if you have one? However, if you can introduce bus priority and reduce car parking provision, then you might start to affect the balance. Of course, local authorities are dependant on car parking as a valuable revenue stream (so you understand their reticence in reducing that) and putting up parking charges is always a bad news story, as is removing parking from outside local shops and businesses. It's a real challenge for councils, let alone operators.
Point 5 is one we all recognise. I know that Thanet (Westwood Cross) was mentioned in the post that started this discussion but I mentioned Bishop Auckland in Co Durham. It was a traditional thriving town centre but when I was there last month... the place looked like the zombie apocalypse had struck. Instead, the council has allowed a major car centric, out of town development to be built over the last 10-15 years that has abstracted most of the retail business. This is not new - it happened first with Merry Hill, effectively gutting Dudley's high street and that was in the mid 1990s which is why PPG13 (planning guidance) was introduced. Of course, if the shopping centres are large enough, they can establish a critical mass such as Meadowhall, Merry Hill or Bluewater to justify their own routes. Most aren't that big and trying to serve them AND a town centre is often difficult and simply fragments passenger flows.
Instead, it's been the more far sighted councils (like Oxford or Portsmouth) that have sought to curb the rise of out of town shopping centres, limit town/city centre parking, improve bus priority and have good partnerships with operators (who also have a duty in all this - let's not forget) and it's that which is driving bus patronage.
Buses work best when you're moving strong major flows and these are predominantly into the town/city centre from the outskirts. Move from that and fragment the flows and it makes it a lot more difficult.