Good bus territory?

[telstarbox]

The question to be asked here is "are they still good bus territory?" And even if passenger numbers are reasonable, what is access like (e.g. parked cars?). I will admit I haven't used these routes (bit too far away from me for a random housing estate tour), but has anyone commenting done so, to give some idea of passenger numbers? Being aware, of course, that one person's "rammed" is another person's "never anyone on when I see it".

To take another example from elsewhere in Kent, on a pure "social strata" aspect, the Isle of Sheppey should be "good bus territory" - in fact, it's awful, and has been for decades.

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?

 

[izvor]

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.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

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).

 

[BuhSnarf]

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.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

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.

 

[aron2smith]

I think what also affects 'good bus territory' is if local political boundaries aid or plain get in the way of where people need and want to go. Here in the Lea Valley, I'd say the boundaries are very harmful to an efficient and effective bus network. All but now 2 routes (66 and 251) require a change in Waltham Cross of everything that serves Cheshunt, Enfield and Waltham Abbey, this is despite it being 1 urban area by definition, with a combined population of a small city on its own. It's fragmented in a small town centre that is slowly dying, it hasn't even got a post office now! Very little open in the evening, so nothing much to encourage travel late in the day.

I really do think there would be a lot more demand for buses in the area if services reached the main town centre in the wider area, which is Enfield Town plus the adjacent Southbury Road Retail Park, currently anyone that has to pay for the bus beyond Waltham Cross would have to pay £4.75 each way to go there for a journey of just 4 to 5 miles, meaning anyone who wants to go will just drive or not bother due to the high costs. Without even considering the lesser timetable and unreliability of the privatised routes. Unsurprisingly both the Hertford Road and the A10 are very congested especially in peak times, large numbers of drivers likely crossing into or leaving Greater London. You have a sizeable population north of the M25 which is only growing in the future and demographic changes as more of us can no longer afford London rents.

I think between Crews Hill and the developments in Goffs Oak and Cheshunt, it is significant enough that the services need to change, with London buses needing to come back to the area. I know it's been argued over and over on here, but its the only long term way to solve the problem. Crews Hill because of where it is could really tip the balance. Even with a return to a £2 cap next year, the local buses are not integrated into TFL's fare structures and caps, so its prohibitively expensive for the more local journeys people typically make by bus. While going further away from London, this penalty doesn't really apply. Trains by comparison here have a comprehensive all day timetable and are crucially integrated into Oyster Cards and TFL capping. I wouldn't be surprised if train ridership increased greatly when Cheshunt became reachable by Oyster Card. And the same could happen if buses also accepted it here. Always seeing people here trying to just tap in for the driver to ask for their destination, so there is some confusion out here.

Having travelled all over London, having my area arbitrarily separate in transport terms, I can only imagine it would be the same mess if Collier Row and Harold Wood were kept separate from Romford, Pinner and Hatch End from Harrow, Hayes and Farnborough from Bromley or Old Coulsdon and Selsdon from Croydon. So on paper buses would still link these places but charge separate/ higher fares and have no caps or hopper fares and see what happens to passenger numbers and congestion then. Putting heavily residential areas with no local industries or often built up away from a railway into a system where no integration exists at all. My argument is these suburbs would be like any inter war/ post war new towns in the rest of the country. A lack of network integration would put a lot of current passengers in London off.

For a deregulated example, imagine if you got on a Trent Barton service in Eastwood and were forced to change bus to the municipal NCT on the edge of Nottingham in a small local centre with little around, that would be a hard sell for many, but it's precisely the problem in my area. The way an area is laid out definitely impacts a lot, it was quite noticeable how quick it is to get out of Nottingham at least when I rid the Rainbow One to Eastwood and the 90 to Newark when I stayed up there.

Public or private, many of the lauded bus companies and operations are essentially local/ regional monopolies. Metrobus already mentioned (Crawley) basically runs almost everything from the southern limits of London and parts of Kent to the Sussex Coast! A proper scale required to run a decent network. Unlike say Arriva where they run odd routes here and there which may or may not even connect with each other!

It could very well be the effects of a franchised system meeting a deregulated one, but it don't work for the passengers. I'm expecting Herts will franchise and hopefully then something can be worked out in these awkward fringe areas around the M25. Essex, sadly seems to no signs they are willing to change anything.

Liverpool now its starting to franchise its buses is showing encouraging signs with Greater Manchester on cross-boundary routes.

Also interesting points on the other posts. It does show development and transport do overlap and planners really should consider them together.

 

[philthetube]

I would say good territory is a place like Canterbury, lots of places around 20 miles away where people want to visit and people want to visit Canterbury as well, so dropping off/picking up all the way rather than either picking up or dropping off on any single journey.

 

[Megafuss]

Somehere like Swindon is good bus territory.

The Town Centre actually in the centre.

The Rail Station connected to the bus network (although it was better with the old Fleming Way).

Multiple retail, education, leisure, health and district centres on the ourskirts connected through main estate roads and the town centre.

An excellent bus interchange facility.

The more deprived areas with the highest frequency. A decent level of service for the better off areas.

 

[higthomas]

I think the biggest thing, at least with regards urban routes, is population density. A lot of the best bus territory I've come across is loads of dense terraced housing of a lot straight road, like Green Lanes in Wood Green, or Stockport Road in Levenshulme. Meaning every bus stop has lots of potential users, leading to more buses and a more attractive frequency.

Of course such housing tends to end up with certain socio-economic groups, which obviously has an effect, but there are similar places with pretty poor bus services too, generally the more sparse estates.

 

[MotCO]

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.

On-line banking, on-line shopping for goods and food and Deliveroo must have reduced demand.

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.

The other obvious one is university campuses, particularly if halls of residences are out of town. But, if universities are suffering from reduced student numbers / prospective students being encouraged to learn trades, how much longer would this be the case?

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.

Crawley is an interesting case. Arriva couldn't make it work, and Metrobus took over and it thrived. Maybe the operator is a factor, i.e. those which can be entrepreneurial. Also, Metrobus has to compete with airport wages, and numerous airport parking bus companies for drivers and mechanics.

 

[telstarbox]

Brighton & Hove seems to tick a lot of these boxes - strong internal economy, dense population, some uni students (with two-way traffic between Falmer and town), some large estates. Also a well marketed network.

 

[rmHawk765]

like Green Lanes in Wood Green

Travel about 20 mins towards Palmers Green and Enfield and suddenly all the transport links become significantly worse... and then once you reach Enfield Town the buses become great again. Very much the effect of population density here, however the rail services towards Enfield are disproportionately poor nonetheless.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think what also affects 'good bus territory' is if local political boundaries aid or plain get in the way of where people need and want to go. Here in the Lea Valley, I'd say the boundaries are very harmful to an efficient and effective bus network. All but now 2 routes (66 and 251) require a change in Waltham Cross of everything that serves Cheshunt, Enfield and Waltham Abbey, this is despite it being 1 urban area by definition, with a combined population of a small city on its own. It's fragmented in a small town centre that is slowly dying, it hasn't even got a post office now! Very little open in the evening, so nothing much to encourage travel late in the day.

Of course you'd say that... However, what makes good bus territory isn't boundaries or TfL or whatever your usual protestations involve, and what you are saying simply doesn't stack up.

Buses invariably are a product of "derived demand" - in only a few instances (like the open toppers and heritage buses) are people using buses for anything other than to meet a requirement to travel. If anything, what TfL does is actually do the opposite in that they invariably provide bus services whether the territory is good bus territory or not. You cannot say that Westerham is good bus territory just because the 246 heads over there. You honestly think that the reason why Waltham Cross or Cheshunt are slowly dying is because of its' location in relation to TfL and the comparative lower service from one side of WX to the other? Not the impact of internet shopping, not internet banking, not the decline in the on-trade for drinking, not the closure of post offices as benefits are paid into bank accounts, not the impact of business rates... You think it's the relative impact of the bus network?

The fact is that all of the factors that I listed above have impacted the health of the high street and that is a major driver of bus patronage, as are issues such as population density, planning decisions (like rowing back from PPG13), fragmentation of employment etc. How good or bad an individual council is in subsidising bus services isn't the point; how they enable buses to be competitive in terms of speed vs cars is something that they can influence.

I'd suggest you read @Dwarfer1979's post above - he knows what he's talking about.

 

[aron2smith]

Buses invariably are a product of "derived demand" - in only a few instances (like the open toppers and heritage buses) are people using buses for anything other than to meet a requirement to travel. If anything, what TfL does is actually do the opposite in that they invariably provide bus services whether the territory is good bus territory or not. You cannot say that Westerham is good bus territory just because the 246 heads over there. You honestly think that the reason why Waltham Cross or Cheshunt are slowly dying is because of its' location in relation to TfL and the comparative lower service from one side of WX to the other? Not the impact of internet shopping, not internet banking, not the decline in the on-trade for drinking, not the closure of post offices as benefits are paid into bank accounts, not the impact of business rates... You think it's the relative impact of the bus network?

They are definitely strongly linked, the economy starts struggling locally, like one of the main shops goes away. Like Woolworths, the building sits empty now after even the Poundland in its place shut. Buses cut in the evenings and the economy declines further as it did in the mid to late 10s. Then the department store starts struggling or is pushed out, like the council wants Fishpools to move out (1 of basically just 2 reasons to go to the Cross now, the other being a still reasonably successful market). Ever useful Homebase, gone already. That's basically the story very simply. The point is make it harder to go somewhere and that only aids the cycle of decline of a place. Loss of London buses to Waltham Abbey definitely hit the town hard in the end, the contrast with lively Loughton is huge.

Westerham for its size punches above its weight and I think buses play their part in that. Think of the subsidy as an investment in that place.

Shops shut in Edmonton and Enfield too but they declined less because the buses were more or less left alone (possibly changing now with the stupid 149 consultation).

TFL's approach to serve everything as equally as possible in its area is the right thing to do but I'll die on the hill where their area simply does not match the actual functional footprint of London. Especially where future developments on the fringes are concerned.

I think all internet shopping and the rest proves is town centres need the space to adapt but small businesses don't seem to get much encouragement these days, how can they if no one can afford to save up or try things? People going out less is because there's less disposable income, that's it.

You can't tell me fragmented authorities do either a local economy or public transport any favours.

From what I can tell of the places people often agree are 'good' for buses, as I say it's nearly always a single operator in control of a region, a natural monopoly, which transport is by default. It's never just 1 route in isolation, it's a coordinated network. But that doesn't mean everywhere else should have to put up with inferior services, hence the push for franchising to restore that network.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

From what I can tell of the places people often agree are 'good' for buses, as I say it's nearly always a single operator in control of a region, a natural monopoly, which transport is by default. It's never just 1 route in isolation, it's a coordinated network. But that doesn't mean everywhere else should have to put up with inferior services, hence the push for franchising to restore that network.

Oxford has two operators, as does Portsmouth, and Leicester has three and all are considered good bus territory both in the theory of good that I outlined earlier but also in the practice of how it is actually delivering both in service delivery and passenger numbers. The structure of the delivery matters much less than the effort, dedication and strategy of both partners and whilst there are some good ones there are a lot of local authorities who lack either the political will and/or personnel or skill sets to make any great difference and franchising won't change that (probably more so than operators but on the other hand there are too many operators who seem to be unwilling to make efforts alone without a proactive council that means the end result is little different).

Factors that determine "good bus territory" are entirely independent of the number of operators, and historically you would expect good territory to have more operators as it produces more income to support more operators (though modern consolidation & political pressures mean dynamics have changed), though if you only have one you are reliant on a level of more than business thinking from the single operator to avoid that monopoly being taken advantage of that is lessened if there were more than one operator keeping everyone on their toes.

Good bus territory is also largely unrelated to political boundaries, it is in fact only when one of the local authorities has a different system (like London franchising) and treats that border as fairly hard (Manchester, for instance, has been much softer on its approach to cross-boundary commercial services than London appears) that this becomes a factor (the boundary between Herts & Essex is much more porous than Herts & London for instance). In fact the historical company boundaries from the 1950's or even 1920's are more obvious than some of the county boundaries in terms of the commercial network (the supported network is more affected by political boundaries).

 

[Wawanesa]

Dwarfer1979, in particular, has made some good points. Population density and congestion are clearly key factors. However there are some operators who clearly "make their own luck". A small market town like Bourne in rural Lincolnshire wouldn't really be considered good bus territory however if a family like the Delaine-Smith's dedicates itself to the task for a century then they can earn enough profit to place a shiny new bus in to service nearly every new vehicle registration period.

 

[aron2smith]

Oxford has two operators, as does Portsmouth, and Leicester has three and all are considered good bus territory both in the theory of good that I outlined earlier but also in the practice of how it is actually delivering both in service delivery and passenger numbers. The structure of the delivery matters much less than the effort, dedication and strategy of both partners and whilst there are some good ones there are a lot of local authorities who lack either the political will and/or personnel or skill sets to make any great difference and franchising won't change that (probably more so than operators but on the other hand there are too many operators who seem to be unwilling to make efforts alone without a proactive council that means the end result is little different).

I think in those places, the companies generally keep out of each others way and serve specific service types. In Nottingham, it felt like there was an equilibrium between NCT serving local journeys while Trent Barton runs more regional journeys. I wouldn't say competition really exists between them. Leicester seems to have quite an effective partnership in place, so effective it doesn't matter to the public who runs what anymore. I think all 3 cities also have councils who care and crucially control a suitable area in relation to their city area.

Factors that determine "good bus territory" are entirely independent of the number of operators, and historically you would expect good territory to have more operators as it produces more income to support more operators (though modern consolidation & political pressures mean dynamics have changed), though if you only have one you are reliant on a level of more than business thinking from the single operator to avoid that monopoly being taken advantage of that is lessened if there were more than one operator keeping everyone on their toes.

I think maybe I came into this thread thinking of places that have good services more than anything.

Dense development and population always is key but I don't think it necessarily has to be urban to work out for operators. Some regions and counties manage to have strong interurban or regional services centred on a city (Norfolk) or a couple decently located towns in good proximity to each other (Cornwall), often where a railway is less great. Or don't fully exist anymore like the towns Metrobus serves in Sussex and Kent.

Isle of Wight, I would consider good bus territory despite it being largely rural. Helped by the towns being compact and full of shops and attractions, lack of car centric retail parks etc. Plenty to draw visitors in from off the Island while having everything locals need the rest of the time. It clearly works well for the operator that not only are their night buses, but it's 1 of just 2 places in the country with Christmas Day buses!

Good bus territory is also largely unrelated to political boundaries, it is in fact only when one of the local authorities has a different system (like London franchising) and treats that border as fairly hard (Manchester, for instance, has been much softer on its approach to cross-boundary commercial services than London appears) that this becomes a factor (the boundary between Herts & Essex is much more porous than Herts & London for instance). In fact the historical company boundaries from the 1950's or even 1920's are more obvious than some of the county boundaries in terms of the commercial network (the supported network is more affected by political boundaries).

I generally agree with that it's just frustrating in the case of London, as it harms everywhere involved and that part of the problem seems ignored. And it can't keep ignored if they want new towns and growth. It wouldn't have been a problem if London continued serving everywhere they did in 1980 nowadays. It'd be like if Manchester cut their bus to Huddersfield to the 1st place on the border (Marsden?) and force people to change with unpredictable waits to keep going despite an obvious traffic objection which is a large town.

I agree about Herts and Essex, but not surprising given the road and rail network going back and forth between the 2. I do appreciate a lot that 1 bus is all that is needed to take me to Epping Forest and the Central Line now, just it should be that easy for the places nearer to me in North London too. Services need to be frequent all day, every day for changing buses to work well. It works going into London, but not going home, especially at night, when Arriva runs so little.

 

[SSmith2009]

I think in those places, the companies generally keep out of each others way and serve specific service types. In Nottingham, it felt like there was an equilibrium between NCT serving local journeys while Trent Barton runs more regional journeys. I wouldn't say competition really exists between them. Leicester seems to have quite an effective partnership in place, so effective it doesn't matter to the public who runs what anymore. I think all 3 cities also have councils who care and crucially control a suitable area in relation to their city area.

Leicester have the enhanced partnership that has seen an end to operators directly competing on routes.

Joined up timetables exist on a few corridors and work well, Flexi ticketing has recently replaced operator only tickets and as a passenger is so much easier for travelling, it just needs to be extended into the county areas now.

 

[JonathanH]

Crawley is an interesting case. Arriva couldn't make it work, and Metrobus took over and it thrived. Maybe the operator is a factor, i.e. those which can be entrepreneurial. Also, Metrobus has to compete with airport wages, and numerous airport parking bus companies for drivers and mechanics.

One thing that is interesting about Metrobus in Crawley is that its double decker fleet tends to be made up of cascaded buses from Brighton for about five years of further use. (I realise that Surrey County Council / Government provided funding for new vehicles on the Epsom / Sutton route.) This suggests that aside from the Fastway routes, it still isn't that fertile in terms of bus operation territory.

 

[KHCT]

They are definitely strongly linked, the economy starts struggling locally, like one of the main shops goes away. Like Woolworths, the building sits empty now after even the Poundland in its place shut. Buses cut in the evenings and the economy declines further as it did in the mid to late 10s. Then the department store starts struggling or is pushed out, like the council wants Fishpools to move out (1 of basically just 2 reasons to go to the Cross now, the other being a still reasonably successful market). Ever useful Homebase, gone already. That's basically the story very simply. The point is make it harder to go somewhere and that only aids the cycle of decline of a place. Loss of London buses to Waltham Abbey definitely hit the town hard in the end, the contrast with lively Loughton is huge.

Westerham for its size punches above its weight and I think buses play their part in that. Think of the subsidy as an investment in that place.

Shops shut in Edmonton and Enfield too but they declined less because the buses were more or less left alone (possibly changing now with the stupid 149 consultation).

TFL's approach to serve everything as equally as possible in its area is the right thing to do but I'll die on the hill where their area simply does not match the actual functional footprint of London. Especially where future developments on the fringes are concerned.

I think all internet shopping and the rest proves is town centres need the space to adapt but small businesses don't seem to get much encouragement these days, how can they if no one can afford to save up or try things? People going out less is because there's less disposable income, that's it.

You can't tell me fragmented authorities do either a local economy or public transport any favours.

From what I can tell of the places people often agree are 'good' for buses, as I say it's nearly always a single operator in control of a region, a natural monopoly, which transport is by default. It's never just 1 route in isolation, it's a coordinated network. But that doesn't mean everywhere else should have to put up with inferior services, hence the push for franchising to restore that network.

You seem to be suggesting that a lack of bus provision directly leads to economic decline in town and city centres. That's very simplistic and ignores the many, many other contributary factors.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

They are definitely strongly linked, the economy starts struggling locally, like one of the main shops goes away. Like Woolworths, the building sits empty now after even the Poundland in its place shut. Buses cut in the evenings and the economy declines further as it did in the mid to late 10s. Then the department store starts struggling or is pushed out, like the council wants Fishpools to move out (1 of basically just 2 reasons to go to the Cross now, the other being a still reasonably successful market). Ever useful Homebase, gone already. That's basically the story very simply. The point is make it harder to go somewhere and that only aids the cycle of decline of a place. Loss of London buses to Waltham Abbey definitely hit the town hard in the end, the contrast with lively Loughton is huge.

They are definitively linked but not in the way that you think. The health of the high street is intrinsically linked to demand - for the services that they provide whether retail or hospitality. Remember that the vast majority of people who go into town centres aren't travelling by bus in any case (though I'm sure we wish they were) - just look at the National Transport Survey.

Public transport is not a shaper of demand generally. It is a reflection of demand generally and always has been. Not wishing to play a card here but literally, it was in the first week of my Business and Transport degree! Here's some good stuff from https://transportfutures.institute/the-drivers-of-transport-demand/ and it really does summarise the key factors that influence demand:

Transport systems are the lifeblood of economies and societies, enabling mobility, access to opportunities, and efficient movement of goods.

However, understanding what drives transport demand is essential to effectively plan, manage, and innovate these systems. Transport demand is not a standalone phenomenon—it reflects demographic, economic, and technological changes. These interconnected forces shape how, why, and where people and goods move.

• Demographics are fundamental drivers of transport needs. Population size, age, location, and household structure changes directly influence travel patterns.
• The state of the economy, employment patterns, and income levels play a significant role in transport demand
• Technological advancements are transforming how transport systems operate and user behaviours and expectations.

For example, evening bus services declined markedly in the 1960s and it was in response to socio economic changes. Fewer people went into town to go to the cinema, because of the technological advance of television. Cinemas closed so that by 1965, cinema attendances fell by to 20% of what they had been in 1945. 60 years later and we see a similar technological development in the rise of internet shopping and decline of the high street. Bus services aren't responsible for the rise of Amazon but they are impacted.

Westerham for its size punches above its weight and I think buses play their part in that. Think of the subsidy as an investment in that place.

The 246 has approx 70 passengers per day at the central stop. That's about 3 to 4 passengers per journey. It is minimal, and arguably, the flow of passengers is likely to be towards Bromley.

The reason why Westerham has nice shops and nice pubs is because it is fantastically affluent. It's the most well heeled part of Kent and it's that wealth and disposable income that supports those nice businesses.

Shops shut in Edmonton and Enfield too but they declined less because the buses were more or less left alone (possibly changing now with the stupid 149 consultation).

That's you projecting.

I think all internet shopping and the rest proves is town centres need the space to adapt but small businesses don't seem to get much encouragement these days, how can they if no one can afford to save up or try things? People going out less is because there's less disposable income, that's it.

As I mentioned above with the post war cinema example, that wasn't the case. They had MORE disposable income. The fact is that things change. We have more younger people who are less inclined to frequent pubs and bars, and with the changes to the licensing hours under Blair, those volumes are now fragmented.
It is up to local authorities to fundamentally change the role of town centres. They need to be more leisure focussed, have more residential, and have different anchor tenants whether that's educational establishments or even health facilities.

You can't tell me fragmented authorities do either a local economy or public transport any favours.

I don't think anyone can tell you anything.

From what I can tell of the places people often agree are 'good' for buses, as I say it's nearly always a single operator in control of a region, a natural monopoly, which transport is by default. It's never just 1 route in isolation, it's a coordinated network. But that doesn't mean everywhere else should have to put up with inferior services, hence the push for franchising to restore that network.

No - the good bus areas have much more in common. Some of it is demographics but it's usually the quality of operators (underpinned by things like QPs) allied to very strong pro-bus local authorities with an emphasis on bus priority and other infrastructure improvements.

Dense development and population always is key but I don't think it necessarily has to be urban to work out for operators. Some regions and counties manage to have strong interurban or regional services centred on a city (Norfolk) or a couple decently located towns in good proximity to each other (Cornwall), often where a railway is less great. Or don't fully exist anymore like the towns Metrobus serves in Sussex and Kent.

Isle of Wight, I would consider good bus territory despite it being largely rural. Helped by the towns being compact and full of shops and attractions, lack of car centric retail parks etc. Plenty to draw visitors in from off the Island while having everything locals need the rest of the time. It clearly works well for the operator that not only are their night buses, but it's 1 of just 2 places in the country with Christmas Day buses!

Take Norfolk as an example. Most of it ISN'T good bus territory. The North Norfolk coast is highly seasonal. West Norfolk bounded between Kings Lynn Thetford and Dereham is desperately thin territory. What you have is a mix of decent operators, a very pro-bus council, BSIP funding, and in Norwich, a regional centre that has both good bus priority.

Isle of Wight does have a single operator and a smallish population of 141k. It also welcome 2.4m annual visitors and that is crucial to shaping the network.

You seem to be suggesting that a lack of bus provision directly leads to economic decline in town and city centres. That's very simplistic and ignores the many, many other contributary factors.

Absolutely right. There are many factors from business rates, internet shopping, more people working from home, decline of on-trade drinking, etc and many more.

 

[Cesarcollie]

One thing that is interesting about Metrobus in Crawley is that its double decker fleet tends to be made up of cascaded buses from Brighton for about five years of further use. (I realise that Surrey County Council / Government provided funding for new vehicles on the Epsom / Sutton route.) This suggests that aside from the Fastway routes, it still isn't that fertile in terms of bus operation territory.

The presence and growth of Gatwick Airport is a major factor in the strength of the Crawley bus network I suspect.

 

[MotCO]

One thing that is interesting about Metrobus in Crawley is that its double decker fleet tends to be made up of cascaded buses from Brighton for about five years of further use. (I realise that Surrey County Council / Government provided funding for new vehicles on the Epsom / Sutton route.) This suggests that aside from the Fastway routes, it still isn't that fertile in terms of bus operation territory.

True about the cascaded buses - although those from B&H are Volvo Wrights, and still seem pretty decent.

 

[JonathanH]

True about the cascaded buses - although those from B&H are Volvo Wrights, and still seem pretty decent.

Yes, they generally present well following the refurbishment coming out of Brighton service.

 

[ox_chap]

Oxford is good. Careful targeted BSIP expenditure has supported building a top-notch network. And the Botley Road bridge is about to reopen, revitalising services from Oxford westwards.