REF0063

Written evidence submitted by Bus Rapid Transit UK

Introduction 1 Bus Rapid Transit UK (BRTuk)1 is a professional organisation of representatives of authorities, bus operating, construction, consultancy, infrastructure and IT supply companies and concerned individuals seeking to promote the goal of road transport services offering high levels of passenger service and amenity comparable to rail-based mass transit services. Bus systems can be implemented at cheaper cost and earlier and have the further advantage of flexibility. 2 In many parts of the UK bus operators and local authorities working together are using high quality bus services designed so that choosing bus travel in preference to car reduces congestion and pollution in busy areas. Creditable examples can be found in Cambridgeshire (busway), Hampshire (Eclipse), Greater Manchester (Vantage), Bristol (Metro), Luton/Dunstable (Busway), Crawley (Fastway), West Yorkshire (guided busways in Leeds and Bradford), Edinburgh to Fife (Queensferry Crossing) and elsewhere. In all of these, modern comfortable buses with good passenger information systems and electronic ticketing have been given extensive priorities (in some cases exclusive busways), high quality passenger facilities including bus shelters and real time information both at stops and in the buses. Such systems have high performance values often enshrined in consistent branding. 3 In other parts of the world, notably the Americas and Asia, BRT is often defined defined as having near complete segregation from other traffic with priorities at intersections with the local highway network. In most UK towns and cities the street layouts, heritage assets and density of development mean that it is difficult for promoters of BRT style systems to achieve the degree of priority required to transform High Quality Bus Services into BRT. Bus priority lanes and busways on radial routes enable faster, more reliable journeys but central area congestion remains a significant obstacle that can only be overcome by rigorous management of traffic and parking within strategies to remove non-essential traffic, reduce pollution and improve air quality. 4 In the UK, “Glider” in Belfast and “Fastrack” in Kent Thameside are probably the bus systems that most nearly approach the full BRT ideal. Summary 5 In responding to the Committee’s call for evidence, BRTuk recommends that: 1. As soon as practicable, the Government produces, in close consultation with stakeholders in the bus and coach sector, its promised National Bus Strategy (NBS) including a five-year programme for investment in and support to the sector; 2. In the interim the Government should continue and rationalise support for the bus and coach sector by extending CBSSG and other temporary funding until the NBS and funding programme are approved; 3. Highway authorities should be required to discharge their duties under the Traffic Management Act 2004 so as to ensure that priorities are given to active travel and public transport in support of clean air and decarbonisation policies. 4. All stakeholders should be involved in transport decision making at local or regional level through Strategic Transport Alliances; 5. Only by vigorously tackling the cancer of urban congestion can progress be made towards cleaner, healthier communities and decarbonisation.

1 See http://www.brtuk.com/ REF0063 Effect of the Pandemic on Travel 6 Compared with 2019, following the lockdown on 23rd March2: 1. bus use fell with operators reporting use ranging from 5% to 18%. Since the return to school it recovered by 23rd September to just under 60% outside London and slightly more in London; 2. London Underground and National Rail passenger use are now above 30%. 3. Car use fell to below a third but is now around 90% of 2019 levels on weekdays, but over 100% in recent weekends. The uncongested streets and clean air of the first few weeks of lockdown offered a glimpse of what a cleaner, greener future may offer. 4. Road freight vehicle traffic is now slightly more than in 2019, rail freight is 85-90%. 5. Reported cycle use fluctuated wildly peaking at over 300% earlier in the pandemic but has fallen away to between 150% and 200% as autumn approaches. 7 As an example of what these changes actually mean to a bus operator, a group operating in Sussex with the highest patronage per head anywhere in the UK outside of London has seen a slow recovery from 5% to around 50%. This equates to losses of over 500,000 passenger journeys per week. 8 The changes and recommendations that the Prime Minister announced on 22nd September will probably have the effects of depressing public transport use again. They may reduce car traffic slightly and possibly increase cycle use rather than the drop expected in autumn winds and rain. 9 Early in the pandemic the Government advised against use of public transport in unnecessarily strong terms, despite mandating a level of service for key workers way above the reduced demand. Social distancing of 2 metres restricted capacity, for both buses and trains to less than 20% of seats. 10 People on buses generally sit in rows one behind the other, giving less opportunity for airborne transmission than the face to face situation assumed in early guidance. Having taken note of representations from a number of concerned organisations, including BRTuk, the Government agreed in July to a risk-based approach enabling capacity to be raised to almost 50%, broadly corresponding to using every seat alongside a window. All passengers are now required to use face coverings with the exception of younger children and those whose medical conditions make this undesirable. 11 Government advice on not using public transport was reversed when restrictions on the retail and hospitality sectors began to be progressively released. However, the general pandemic advice remains to work from home if possible. When using public transport people are now required to wear face coverings, and advised to travel at off peak times, keep changes to a minimum and book tickets and seats online. Operators are advised to provide for social distancing in vehicles and at stations and stops. 12 Unfortunately, the messaging from Government about public transport use created fear that it increased the danger of infection. Bus and train operators had adopted deep cleaning regimes and public transport was not, and is not, a significant setting for infection. This has been borne out in international comparisons3. The Chancellor and The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set a splendid example by using public transport to travel to launch the Kickstart scheme. More visible leadership of this kind can only assist public transport’s recovery. 13 The restriction on use of public transport to key workers meant those excluded needed to find other means of travel. Transport Focus surveys suggest this could be long lasting4, particularly as

2 As at 23rd September 2020. DfT’s Transport use by mode: Great Britain since 1 March 2020 is a good overview, updated weekly, at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/914893/ COVID-19-transport-use-statistics.ods 3 For example, There Is Little Evidence That Mass Transit Poses a Risk of Coronavirus Outbreaks, Scientific American 28th July 2020, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/there-is-little-evidence-that-mass- transit-poses-a-risk-of-coronavirus-outbreaks/ 4 The series of “Travel during Covid-19 surveys” by Transport Focus tracks peoples use of and attitudes to REF0063 peak period traffic levels and congestion have decreased making car use more attractive. An important consequence of the Government’s stark messaging has been that a significant proportion of the public fear that public transport is an unsafe environment5. Despite considerable efforts by operators to reassure passengers and prospective passengers that, for example, “We’re Safe, Clean and Ready to Go”6, there were still almost 50% of those surveyed by Transport Focus that were unwilling to use public transport who considered public transport unsafe or were avoiding use of public transport. 14 The modal choice of those no longer using public transport is very important. Those choosing to walk or cycle are acting in accordance with the goal of increasing active travel. It is expected that over time, weather or other factors will mean that some will return to buses for at least some journeys. The concern is that those using cars for longer, but still relatively short, journeys will not easily return. 15 In designing schemes that make it easier to walk and cycle for short journeys, highway authorities should also recognise that buses and active travel are inextricably linked, so that such schemes should also provide for buses. If that is not done an unintended consequence may be that bus travel becomes less attractive and, if available, the car alternative may be chosen. 16 BRTuk recommends that authorities should either design integrated “walk, cycle, bus” schemes from the outset or, retrospectively, consider the effect of displaced car traffic, for example from local neighbourhood schemes, on bus routes and, if necessary, take further mitigation measures to avoid delay to buses. Many of the high-quality bus schemes cited in paragraph 2 have been designed together with accompanying walking and cycling measures. Effect of the pandemic on Bus and Coach Operators and Active Travel 17 The bus and coach sector has suffered from dramatic changes in the number of users due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Government funding has been necessary to sustain local bus services which are a long way from being commercially viable due to reduced demand and capacity limited by social distancing. It has not been possible to cover all costs, so that virtually every bus route in the UK now depends on public support. 18 Many transport businesses have taken advantage of Government measures such as Job Retention Scheme furloughs and business rates relief whilst also reducing their costs by delicensing coaches for example. In addition, local authorities were asked by Government to maintain concessionary travel and contracted (“socially necessary”) service payments at pre-pandemic levels. Some managers have been able to work from home at least for part of each week. The Government has paid COVID-19 Bus Services Support Grant (CBSSG) initially to maintain sufficient journeys to meet the needs of key workers, later to support also a ramping up of services as people were encouraged to return to work with shops and hospitality venues reopening concurrently. 19 Many marginal bus services, particularly those in rural areas many provided by smaller operators, have been drastically reduced or ceased operation. Some smaller, often family run, companies ceased trading. Larger operators have survived but only with significant Government support. 20 Government relaxed the rules for the introduction of Traffic Regulation Orders to permit pavement widening to permit social distancing and to facilitate “pop-up” cycle lanes. Few councils that took advantage of these powers seem to have appreciated that the DfT guidance also provided for bus priority measures to be strengthened. In a number of areas the changes first introduced have been modified or withdrawn to improve the flow of buses and other traffic.

public transport, see (https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research-publications/publications/travel-during- covid-19-survey-week-19/) 5 Transport Focus “Analysis of travel during Covid-19 survey” see (https://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/04083513/Analysis-of-travel-during- Covid-19-survey.pdf) 6 Transdev Blazefield, a group of bus operating companies in both urban and rural Lancashire and Yorkshire, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iHrS61cJ-g REF0063 21 As car traffic increased, measures to encourage active travel caused some difficulty for buses, coaches, goods and servicing vehicles as some routes were severed and junctions became congested because of reduced highway capacity. Many of the more disruptive measures have been withdrawn, modified or replaced. Lessons for the future must be drawn by DfT collating evidence from councils on what worked and what didn’t. 22 Although there is a belief that buses and active travel are not natural bedfellows, this is sadly mistaken as, almost invariably, a walk will be involved at each end of a bus trip. Progressive councils are also encouraging bike-and-ride, providing cycle storage at bus stations and integration with bike sharing schemes in town and city centres. 23 Clearly at both national and local levels more active travel and more use of public transport are necessary to achieve the goals of healthier communities, cleaner air and decarbonisation. Local authorities should be required to use their powers under the Traffic Management Act 2004 to prioritise appropriately balanced bus priority and active travel measures. The resultant networks should promote rapid bus access to and across city, town and suburban centres. Public Transport Use after the Pandemic 24 Permanent changes to the pattern of demand for all forms of passenger transport are virtually certain as a result of increased working from home and also internet shopping, particularly for food and essentials. There is a risk that a Tuesday-to-Thursday working week will result in the same level of peak travel on just three days instead of five, worsening utilisation. 25 Given the unique circumstances of the pandemic and the changes it is wreaking in perceived demand for travel, national and local administrations might adopt a scenario approach when determining future support levels. For example, a high growth hypothesis might predict a return to 2019 levels in 2-3 years’ time at which point commercial growth might resume for some bus operators. Conversely, a pessimistic view might be that travel never returns to 2019 levels and intervention will be necessary to achieve committed decarbonisation and air quality targets. 26 Service registration requirements have been relaxed during the pandemic so that the provision of services is more responsive to changing circumstances. Sources in the bus industry suggest that, even with greater flexibility in the registration system, it will take years rather than months to recover to a point where external revenue support can be ended without severe service withdrawals. As buses recover from the pandemic it will be important for both operators and authorities to have the ability to respond quickly and deftly to changing travel patterns. 27 The temporary suspension of various regulatory controls, including de facto suspension of restrictions on co-operation and co-ordination, has shown how the bus offer could be improved. For example, users benefit from simple actions such as operators accepting each other’s tickets where sections of routes are shared. This provides advantages to users at no cost to operators and does not significantly restrict competition. Regulations should be amended to permit this. 28 The pandemic has provided an opportunity to re-think how, when and where bus services are provided. Given the expected changes in demand, services will need to be re-timed, routes to be changed and fares simplified. It is clear that many pre-pandemic services had limited appeal, particularly for people with wider travel options. However, there are many examples throughout the UK of successful bus services, often delivered by the bus operators working in partnership with the relevant authorities. 29 Changes could take a number of forms ranging from different services at different times of day or with different destinations, fare reforms to attract part time workers, more space within vehicles (perhaps with a ban on standing except on designated services), innovative services based on new technology and better integration with train services and improved walking and cycling routes to bus stops/interchanges. 30 Re-shaping services alone will not be sufficient to attract a large-scale shift from car use. Measures need to be in place that manage car movements better. These include fiscal measures such as workplace parking levies and road user charging in some form. With such measures in REF0063 place, the use of public transport will become more attractive and people and communities will benefit from less car use, in particular better air quality. The UK sampled this during the initial responses to the pandemic with low volumes of traffic and virtually no congestion, a huge benefit to bus operations and to local authorities seeking to improve air quality. 31 The Bus Services Act 2017 provides a toolkit for local authorities to adopt various approaches to governance of bus services but needs to be complemented by regulatory powers that can be used by local highway and transport authorities to actually allow buses to operate faster and more reliably and to ensure that everyone has appropriate levels of bus or other forms of shared mobility services. 32 The bus industry is able to respond to changing circumstances quickly and is rapidly adopting information technology to better inform passengers and introduce new methods of operational control. However, perceived speed of journeys is an important factor in choosing travel mode. Improvements to services, even innovative flexibly routed services, depend on the extent to which highway authorities recognise that bus priority measures are vital for faster bus services and that some restrictions on car use are inevitable throughout urban areas. Lack of direction by successive Governments has allowed car traffic to increase and bus services to decline. This is unsustainable, particularly as both clean air and decarbonisation are amongst the Government’s highest priorities. 33 The Government must fulfil its promise to produce a national bus strategy as soon as practicable, thus delivering a “better deal for bus users”7. Central and Local Government Transport Priorities, Finance and Funding 34 Reductions in economic growth, already forecast before the pandemic, will probably have further downward revisions as the economy attempts to recover. This will weaken the economic case for investment in enhancements. 35 It remains possible that demand will grow more rapidly than long-term relationships suggest, as it did in the years shortly after the 2008 recession. A careful monitoring of trends in patronage and the factors underlying these trends, including policies on fares and subsidies, will help to provide a better understanding of how demand for travel will evolve. 36 Buses are the most flexible form of public transport. When services are of consistently high quality with appropriate traffic management allowing them to operate at optimum speed as advocated by BRTuk they are capable of attracting patronage from cars. Using the carrots of quality bus services, a win-win equilibrium can be established with traffic and parking management to reduce congestion. For example, York, and other historic cities and towns, have demonstrated over several decades how strict central area parking controls, pedestrianisation and bus priorities on the main approaches to the city centre, together with park and ride services overlaid on a good local bus network can deliver higher bus patronage, less congestion and improved air quality. 37 Emergency funding has been vital to maintain services during the pandemic. Many bus services already generated limited surpluses or none at all. Whilst local authorities supported some services as socially necessary, their number has declined with successive spending cuts over the period of austerity from 2010. 38 Any reduction in demand will result in marginal services becoming liabilities that cannot be sustained, particularly if additional buses are needed for core services with social distancing in place. It is unlikely that there will be many, if any, new entrants to the market given the high start-up costs and financial risks in a nervous market. 39 The bus and coach sector and Government alike must accept that public support, and therefore participation, in the industry is likely to be necessary for several years. So partnership at local

7 DfT, 6th March 2020, A better deal for bus users, see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-better- deal-for-bus-users/a-better-deal-for-bus-users REF0063 level between authorities, operators and key stakeholder groups is essential to make efficient and effective use of the resources available. 40 The structuring of support packages should reward both patronage growth and innovation. Investment in facilities such as back offices to support increased use of information and communication technologies might be shared between authorities on a regional basis. Devolution 41 It is completely appropriate that bus and coach operations are matters for the devolved administrations (including London) to consider. 42 The devolved administrations, combined authorities and other local authorities, in consultation with Local Economic Partnerships, must have the powers to ensure that strategic land use planning and transport remain closely related. They need funding to do this, whether channeling central funds or locally raised from rates, council taxes or, more radically, local workplace parking levies or road user charging. 43 The post-pandemic distribution of jobs may be rather different, through a combination of home- working and businesses preferring suburban premises. Similarly retailing may eschew large town centre stores or large shopping malls as internet and local convenience shopping replace the traditional high street. Buses are the public transport mode best-suited to serve more diverse patterns of activity and avoid the expensive infrastructure needs that would result from providing universal car access. 44 An option BRTuk considers worthy of consideration is that Strategic Regional (defined by Combined Authority or Local Economic Partnership area) Transport Alliances consisting of representatives from local authorities, national transport agencies, public transport operators and key stakeholders including businesses and goods vehicle operators) should be given an advisory role in determining the planning and allocation of funds to highway and passenger transport networks in the alliance area. Resilience 45 There is clearly an increasing need for physical resilience against climate change and other scenarios (such as pandemics). Arguably, even though the coronavirus pandemic was unprecedented in Europe more notice should have been taken of the SARS (2003) and MERS (2012) experiences in Asia and Arabia in European responses. Contingency planning should be on the basis that arrangements can be implemented quickly and flexibly, rather than for any foreseeable event. Innovation and Technological Reform 46 Technologies for journey planning, passenger information, seat reservations, contactless and mobile ticketing are mature. Bus and coach operators have made good use of them as appropriate to reduce human contact and ease travel in the difficult conditions of the pandemic. Highly effective cleansing and disinfecting technologies novel to the public transport industries are now in general use. 47 In common with many other organisations, transport authorities and operators have embraced web teleconferencing not only to replace physical meetings but also within the UK and internationally have used webinars to transfer knowledge and experience. This has encompassed both measures combat Covid-19 and the use of new technology applications. 48 More mundane advances using recently developed technology include the ability to display on vehicle displays and passenger information screens both internally and externally how busy a bus is, particularly useful to ensure social distancing during the pandemic but also, in the longer term, to allow disabled people, or simply those that don’t like crowding, to avoid busy services. 49 All of the above innovations, together with advances in power train technologies and services such as MaaS will enable the transport industries to contribute to achieving net-zero carbon by REF0063 2050 or earlier. All can be adopted as part of the High Quality Bus Service packages that BRTuk and others advocate. 50 Hitherto, despite many experiments or demonstrations with demand responsive services dating back to the 1970s, the costs incurred of acquiring and running back offices (to allocate passengers to vehicles and to communicate pick up points and routings to drivers) in addition to the capital and running costs of the vehicles have often meant that the services were not sustainable either commercially or for subsidising authorities. However, during the pandemic a number of services have appeared across the world, including one in the UK, that show promise first by spreading the overhead costs of the powerful back offices over other functions including journey planning, real time information, flexible routing to avoid congestion and more. As suggested earlier such back offices might be shared on a regional basis. Delivering High Quality Bus Services will be part of the justification for such investment. Decarbonisation 51 The diesel and hybrid buses in use in urban areas are already substantially cleaner that either petrol and diesel cars. An increasing number of electric buses are in use. 52 One of the major transport groups is actually rolling out buses with a roof mounted air cleaner that emits air that is purer than the air taken in by the engine. Large scale trials of hydrogen buses are encouraging. Autonomous buses are being used in depots and on private roads. New zero emission vehicles already ordered, some under construction, will come into service in the coming year moving the urban bus sector a further step down the road to net-zero carbon. 53 Roadside emissions from buses are 4% of total traffic emissions so taking buses to zero emissions will not make the difference to air quality required so that our urban centres become cleaner and safer, with less harm to health. Something else must be done. The Downside and the Big Prize 54 Although there is a very encouraging picture of clean bus services in many UK centres, it is often overlooked that many of their benefits are being dissipated as in slow moving congested traffic they are not achieving their optimum environmental performance. In the last decade the time required for the average urban bus journey has increased by around 40%. Passenger time is being wasted, as is the time of all the car drivers and passengers, and all the commercial drivers and their mates. The productivity of our towns and cities is being impeded because not enough effort is being made to tackle the cancer of congestion. 55 The ambition that the bus industry has shown, with considerable assistance from Government funding, in progressing towards first lower emission and now zero emission buses must now be matched by enabling those buses to run faster. We must reverse the vicious circle of slower journeys, less passengers, more cars (because of slower bus journeys) by providing effective bus priorities, letting modern buses running quickly and smoothly and active travel be the dominant traffics. 56 We can then come to a virtuous circle, faster, cleaner, high amenity buses tempting more and more car users to a faster, less stressful journey taking them closer to their destinations than off- site car parks, relieving them of the parking problem too. And, by the way, electric cars, won’t solve the problem, they will be stuck in increased congestion if bus services are allowed to wither by continuing the slothful traffic policies of the past decade. Electric cars also require parking occupying valuable space whether on street or in expensive, wasteful multi-storey car parks. 57 The big prize for society will come with significant mode shift from private car to active travel and public transport (each journey on which is usually accompanied by at least two walking stages). Such improvements will also enable improved local air quality. High Quality Bus Services and BRT have a major part to play in persuading travellers to use public transport rather than cars. Shared mobility with buses at its core is the greener, cleaner choice for a sustainable future.

September 2020