improving bus services

8/14/2019 Improving Bus Services

1/48


2/48

Improving Londons BusServices

An Assembly Invest igat ion into the Qualit y andPerformance of Londons Buses

June 2001


3/48

Assembly Scrutiny: the Principles

An aim for action

An Assembly scrutiny is not an end in it self. It aims for action to achieve improvement.

Independence

An Assembly scrutiny is conducted with objectivity; nothing should be done that could impair theindependence of the process.

Holding t he Mayor t o account

The Assembly examines all aspects of the Mayors strategies.

Inclusiveness

An Assembly scrutiny consults widely, having regard to issues of timeliness and cost.

Const ruct iveness

The Assembly conducts its scrutinies and investigations in a posit ive manner, recognising the needto work with stakeholders and the Mayor to achieve improvement.

Value for money

When conducting a scrutiny the Assembly is conscious of the need to spend taxpayers moneywisely and well.

Members of the Bus Priority Issues Investigative Committee

John Biggs (Chair)Angie BrayLynne FeatherstoneJenny Jones


4/48

i

Foreword by the Chair of the Bus Priority IssuesInvestigative Committee

A Committee of Members from the London Assembly considered the Mayor of

London's current proposals for improving bus services, questioning practit ioners andconsidering examples of good practice from elsewhere.

We concluded t hat t he Mayor and Transport for London are making a range ofproposals that will, if implemented, materially improve bus services in London.

What we are less clear about is whether t he polit ical will and priorit y exists to bringsufficient life to these proposals to make that difference.

We also suggest that with a few experimental acts of bravery, such as reviewing thepriority given to road users, the thoughtful use of technology, and the application ofbetter hands-on management of services, serious improvements might be delivered

that will raise both the performance and t he status of buses in the lives of Londoners.

A reliable and high quality bus service can be delivered at a fraction of the cost and ina fraction of the time of a rail or tram link - the opportunity t o improve transportthrough bett er bus services is therefore a prize worth seeking for all Londoners.

John Biggs


5/48


6/48

Contents

Page

Execut ive summary 1

1. Act ions needed 5

3. Structure of this report 83. The Bus Market and the Mayors Transport Strategy 9

3.1 The London Bus Market 93.2 The Mayors draft Transport Strategy 113.3 Congest ion charging 133.4 Outer London 143.5 Funding arrangements for bus services in future 14

4. Service requirements from the users point of view 16

4.1 What matters most to bus users 164.2 Reliability 184.3 Frequency 234.4 Access to the network 234.5 Ease of interchange 254.6 Informat ion provision 254.7 Journey t ime 264.8 Safety and security 27

4.9 Ticket ing 285. Contracts and operat ional issues 29

6. Need for greater co-operat ion 31

7. Summary of recommendat ions 32

Appendices

A Terms of reference for this scrut iny 38

B Gross and net cost contract ing 40

C Acknowledgements 41


7/48


8/48

1

Execut ive SummaryThis scrutiny, carried out by an Invest igative Committee of the London Assembly, lookedat the quality and performance of Londons bus services and assessed whether the Mayorcan deliver a major change in the quality of the London bus system during his f irst term

of off ice.

Co-operation of the Mayor

The Mayor of London, who is also t he Chair of Transport for London, declined aninvitation to appear in front of us or to submit writ ten evidence. His attendance was notessential and so there was no need for us to consider using the Assemblys powers tocompel him to att end. Ironically, it would have provided an opportunity for him to clarifyhis views, in the absence of which we have concluded that they remain as previouslystated, unchanged by the experience of of f ice.

The Mayor has indicated that he would be willing t o answer quest ions on a recentlycompleted TfL review of bus cont racts. We were aware that TfL has been reviewing it sbus contracting regime since July 2000 but, at the time of writing, this review had stillnot formally reported, although we have been made aware of the main proposals andhave taken account of them in forming our views.

Overall conclusions on bus quality and perf ormance

In a world in which light rail or tram systems are seen as of high status and reliable, thereis a clear challenge to bus providers to show they can do equally well. We found a busindustry in London enthusiastic to take a key part in providing for Londons future

transport needs.

We found strength in the management of bus services within TfL, which is emerging froma less open culture under the old London Transport regime. There are many init iativesand ideas stemming from TfL that can help to improve services, and there is a currentgrowth in Government funding for transport to help translate such ideas into reality.

Bus ridership in London where, unlike the rest of the UK, services remain regulated, hasshown strong recent growth. London Buses has an ambit ious programme to improveservices and address this growth. We broadly support most elements of this programme.

Londons bus industry has achieved much in recent years and continues to distinguishit self in both local and int ernational comparisons. We saw and welcomed evidence thatLondons bus services are generally well run, and that passengers recognise the manystrengths in the exist ing service. We urge TfL to cont inue to build on those strengths.

Bus Cont racts Review

The Committee was aware that TfL has been reviewing its bus contracting regime sinceJuly 2000 and we envisaged reviewing the findings of this exercise. At t he time ofwrit ing t he review had st ill not formally reported, although we have been made aware ofthe main proposals. The considerat ion of bus cont racts forms only a small part of our

work and, having received an outl ine of its conclusions, we concluded that f urther delaywas not warranted.


9/48

2

Overall conclusions on the Mayors aims for bus services

A vision is needed to make a bigger change in the status and performance of Londonsbuses. We examined the Mayors Transport Strategy and looked for a plan that wouldsupport and strengthen a customer-oriented approach to bus services. We did not f ind it .

We concur with the Assemblys view that the Mayors draft Strategy lacks measurabletargets and does not give a coherent vision for the whole of Greater London.

We believe the Mayors Strategy fails to provide TfL wit h the overall aim withinwhich it can plan and prioritise to ensure its bus services meet the needs ofLondoners.

We regret this missed opportunity to transform the perception and status of busservices.

We are concerned that a relatively new and open TfL may close up again, as itspredecessors have done, and not benefit from the great enthusiasm and supportit has in t he wider world, f rom t ravellers and transport professionals.

Principal recommendations

We set out below our main recommendations.

A Bus Forum should be formed, led by operators and including stakeholders, aimingto raise the profile and status of buses in London. This group should hold an annualLondon Bus Summit and should concern itself with leadership on issues such as anannual bus plan for London which is based on wide consultation with stakeholders.

The pay and conditions of bus staff need to be improved but these and any futureinitiatives need to be clearly justified and explained in the London Buses businessplan and tied to performance improvement.

The benefits to bus services from the congest ion charging scheme need to be f urtherdefined.

There needs to be a debate about the priorit y that Londoners should give to buses,particularly in the use of road space. If bus reliability is to seriously improve then buspriority measures, such as 12 hour bus lanes, properly enforced, need to beconsidered on key routes and at bot t lenecks. Our evidence showed that suchmeasures would face some fierce resistance hence the need for an informed buturgent debate.

Routemasters have offered Londoners a solid, reliable and convenient transportopt ion f or many years. For these reasons they are very popular wit h many membersof the general public. Nevertheless they are an anathema to achieving the goal of afully accessible transport system. It is important to balance these issues. In the shortterm, while they remain serviceable, perhaps a compromise can be achieved, forexample making sure that routes are serviced by a combination of Routemasters andfully accessible buses. However, in the long t erm, replacement of t he Routemaster

should become part of the Mayors strategy to ensure all London buses areaccessible.


10/48

3

l Conductors are popular with bus users. In our view the case for more conductors isnot proven, and their numbers should not be increased until satisfactory answers canbe given to the quest ions we raise in this report .

l The increasing def icit which will be incurred in the foreseeable future by LondonBuses in implementing the Mayors strategy for buses will need careful monit oring bythe Assembly and TfL will need to be called to account for these increases as theyoccur.

Bus services in outer London need more development, to improve access to publictransport and reduce congestion. There should be investment in express and limitedstop services to provide an attractive choice for users, particularly on radial routes inouter London.

TfL should reduce its cont rol over bus designs and encourage operators to introducenew and better buses, especially articulated and multi-door buses, and buses withbett er performing wheelchair ramps.

These and other detailed recommendations are set out in this report . We are pleased tonote that some of t hem are being actively considered by TfL.

The Committee is grateful to all who helped by submitt ing detailed evidence, andexpresses its particular thanks to TfL, especially Peter Hendy, to the bus operators whoattended the hearings, to the Committees consultants, Colin Buchanan and Partners, andto Kate Holgate who has provided the highest quality support.


11/48

4


12/48

5

1 Actions Needed

The action points set out below are drawn from the detailed f indings andrecommendat ions in this report . They show what the Committ ee thinks should be done.

1.1 Act ion for t he Mayor, TfL, London Boroughs, bus operatorsand Assembly Members: a Bus Forum

a. To support, facilitate, lead and participate in the creation of a forum (with anyother interested relevant stakeholders, for example, passenger representatives)with the aim of improving communication, co-operat ion and the adopt ion ofcommon standards across London in areas that affect bus operations.

b. To produce an annual Bus Plan for London in consultation with all relevantstakeholders.

c. To consider a London Bus Summit as part of this forum.

1.2 Action for the Mayor

a. Clarify the final Transport Strategy by including:

a clear vision, aims and objectives for Londons buses with prioritised actionsto deliver them

short, medium and long term targets for the performance of London buses information on t he financial basis and sustainabilit y of the proposals relating

to bus services

b. Provide unequivocal information on the quantitative level of improvement thatwill be achieved in bus services before congestion charging is introduced and howthat improvement will be measured.

c. Spell out the benefits to bus services that will flow from the congestion chargingscheme.

d. Address the concerns that out er London is being neglected in the provision of busservices and other transport modes.

e. Publish t he forthcoming proposed improvements to the present bus servicescontracting arrangements in order that these can be scrutinised (t his may overlapwith the publication of this report) together with a clear explanation of the serviceobjectives that drive these changes.

f. Ensure that t hose authorit ies for which you are responsible enforce those traff icregulations that impact on bus performance and develop partnerships with t heother agencies to create a combined enforcement regime. Alongside this thereneeds to be a public debate about the priorit y that Londoners as a whole should

give to buses.


13/48

6

g. Work with the Boroughs to provide access to aff ordable housing f or bus crewsand with TfL and operators to improve the status and pay of bus workers toimprove aff ordability.

h. Review the commitment to double the number of bus conductors by 2004 andinstead use the equivalent resources to employ staff to improve service quality.This may include conductors but could also mean:

Customer service staff at main interchanges Staff for off -bus t icket booths providing a range of products including bus

passes and travelcards at busy stops

Route and t icket supervisors Cleaners at key termini to clean buses during layovers

j. Report on the work to improve bus crews terms and conditions at t he Londonwide level, through direct payments, f ringe benefit s (such as free travel) and byother means such as new forms of contract .

k. Work with TfL and bus operators to develop a staffing strategy aimed at ensuringenough suitably qualified staff are available to deliver high quality bus services inLondon.

l. Commit yourself t o phasing out the Routemaster on grounds of safety andaccessibil ity. In the interim ensure routes served at present by Routemasters arealso served by high frequency accessible buses.

m. Support energetically innovations in customer focused bus design.1.3 Act ion for Transport f or London

a. Develop and annually review a bus plan for London, produced aft er wideconsultation with stakeholders.

b. Int roduce an improved contracting system (we understand that the review isbeing concluded and this will be reviewed once TfL has published the f inalreport).

c. Provide a rat ionale for the budget projections for Londons bus services andsupport an informed debate into the service options that underpin this.

d. Identi fy strategies for serving areas that are more than 5 minut es away f rom a busstop.

e. Promote cashless bus initiat ives to push t heir development forward.f . Reduce cont rol over bus designs.


14/48

7

1.4 Act ion for the bus operat ing companies

a. Work with the Mayor and TfL to develop a staffing strategy aimed at ensuringenough suitably qualified staff are available to deliver high qualit y bus services inLondon.

b. Work with TfL, Boroughs and local communities to devise ways of meeting theneeds of those areas at present poorly served by the bus network.

c. Use procurement power to obtain bett er designed buses to meet Londons needs.

b. Support a greater human presence at major interchanges and busy stops,providing information, providing the perception of a safer travelling environmentand ensuring the less mobile are given priority and help in boarding services.

1.5 Action for the Boroughs

a. Ensure good traff ic regulation enforcement on bus routes where appropriate.

b. Facilitate the provision of affordable houses to bus crews.c. Work wit h TfL and bus operators to develop workable solut ions to improve

accessibility of the bus network for those areas at present poorly served.

1.6 Act ions for the Assembly

a. Investigate further the London Buses Business plan, including the level of

financial subsidy required to deliver Londons bus services and its sustainabilityand outputs.

b. Monitor TfLs performance in implementing its own business plan, contractsreview action plan and the new contract ing system.

c. Monitor TfLs performance with regard to improved responsiveness to passengerrequirements over the coming years.

d. Monitor the achievements of TfLs Enforcement Task Force.

f. Consider the issue of fares and t he various t icketing init iatives being pursued byTfL for buses.

g. Consider carrying out a detailed analysis of the London Buses contract reviewonce it has been published.


15/48

8

2 Structure of t his report

Chapter 3: Sets the scene by reviewing bus services in London and how theycompare to other major cit ies, and then goes on to consider theMayors Transport Strategy as it is likely to affect bus services,

particularly in outer London. Funding, always a diff icult issue, is alsoconsidered briefly in t his sect ion.

Chapter 4: Deals in depth with the needs and concerns of passengers.

Chapters 5 and 6: Address the specif ic issues of let ting contracts to bus operat ingcompanies and the benefits to be gained from co-operation.

Chapter 7: We l ist every recommendation, as it appears in the report, forconvenience. Then, for those recommendations where it is possibleto do so, we show how long we think it might t ake for t he

recommendation to be implemented and for its benefits to becomeclear, together with a suggested performance indicator.

Appendix A: Shows the terms of reference for the investigation.

Appendix B: Presents a worked example to explain the different forms of buscontract in use at present.

Appendix C: Gives the names of everyone who contributed to the scrutinyprocess.


16/48


17/48


18/48

11

A quarter of Londoners never use a bus, while just over half use the network morethan once a fortnight

Almost 50 per cent of regular bus users have no car

Three quarters of passengers use passes; only a quarter pay cash on t he busThe public transport market is not uniform across London but varies signif icant ly betweencentral and out er areas. Within central London public t ransport has an 86 per centmarket share, a 75 per cent market share for t rips into central London but only a 29 percent market share for journeys outside the central area.

Car use and congestion has risen faster in outer London and in this area buses aregenerally the only mode of public t ransport readily available. Over 3 million bus journeysa day take place completely out side cent ral London compared wit h just 400,000 dailyjourneys on the Underground.

However, the relative unatt ract iveness of buses for outer orbital London journeys isdemonstrated by the fact t hat wait ing t imes for these journeys can be over 25 per cent oftotal journey time which in turn is double total car journey time.

Evidence presented to the Committee highlighted signif icant improvements in theresponsiveness and support provided by those responsible for bus management since thetransfer of responsibilities to TfL.

The Commit tee wishes to place on record it s appreciation of all t hose involvedin the day to day running of Londons bus routes.

3.2 The Mayors draft Transport Strategy

The Mayors draft Transport Strategy sets out the key challenges, f rom the Mayorsperspect ive, that affect t ransport in London. These range from sustaining Londons roleas a world city to the need for bett er integration between modes. The underlyingchallenge is, however, to cope with t he apparently ever increasing demand f or t ransportwithin London in a way that is sustainable but does not damage the London economy orits growth. The Committee also notes that the Government s 10 year transport plan,based on its own projections of publ ic and private t ransport investment in publictransport , suggests that a fi f ty per cent increase in bus patronage in Greater London canbe achieved by 2010.

In meeting these challenges the Mayor recognises that buses, unlike other transportmodes, have the potential to deliver early improvements in quality and quant ity ofservice. His draft Transport Strategy aims for a major change in the quality of theLondon bus during the Mayors first t erm of of fice 1.

The Strategy sets out a number of proposals with regard to buses with the following aims:

Review bus contracts so that t hey deliver higher qualit y and reliabilit y

1 Draft Transport Strategy, paragraph 27, page 7


19/48

12

Achieve better performance monitoring of routes Improve pay and conditions of staff Double the number of bus conductors by end of 2004 Progress the London Bus Init iative so that stage one is completed by 2002 and

stage two by early 2003

Expand the bus network, improve f requencies and consider new express services Expand t he 24 hour bus network in frequency and coverage Ensure all bus stops can be served effectively by low floor buses Extend Countdown to 4,000 locations by 2005

Plan t he accelerated int roduct ion of low f loor accessible buses Study opt ions for new bus designs Review safety monitoring Reduce emissions with all buses meeting Euro II standards by 2005 Develop and int roduce standards for bus informat ion

Whilst t he Commit tee support s many of these measures it is not apparent what theproposals and policies set out in t he Strategy relating to buses are trying to achieve.

Without clear aims they are a mere wish list. For example, is the key priority to:

Improve services for exist ing users? Reduce overcrowding on t he Underground? Reduce traffic congestion in outer London? Reduce traff ic congest ion in inner London? All of the above?The Committee was concerned t hat t he evidence presented by TfL suggested that TfL isnot working to a thought t hrough strategy. This run the risk of t rying to tackleeverything at the same time with a danger that resources are too thinly stretched todeliver signif icant improvements, and t here is also a problem for non-TfL audiences,particularly operators and passengers, in not knowing what to expect when a bit ofeverything is possible. This also makes planning for other transport modes and widerspatial planning more difficult.

It is the Committees view that t he Mayors draft Transport Strategy lacks a clear overallobjective or vision and therefore fails to provide an adequate framework for TfL todevelop a strategy for its bus services or t o priori t ise the measures set out in t he draft

Strategy. Without clear aims, objectives and targets it will be impossible for t he Greater


20/48

13

London Assembly and the public to assess whether the Mayor and TfL are deliveringvalue for money in respect of Londons bus services.

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that clear short, medium and long term targets are set for busservices covering market share, patronage, and performance (eg average journey speeds,reliability, safety) and that the Transport Strategy should set out a clear prioritised programme ofmeasures to meet those targets.

3.3 Congestion charging

A key component of the Mayors Transport Strategy is congest ion charging in centralLondon. The Mayor has said that public transport will be improved before congest ioncharging is int roduced. In relation to buses, the Mayor assured the Assembly CongestionCharging Scrutiny Panel that t hese improvements will be not iceable to you and t hepublic . Public transport already has a very high market share both within and to andfrom cent ral London. A ten per cent reduction in t he number of car borne passengersentering central London in t he peak will only lead to a two per cent increase in publictransport journeys.

The Committee heard evidence that congest ion faced by buses is oft en worse in outerLondon and believes that Londoners deserve a better analysis of the issues and betteropt ions for solutions. We were unable to obtain any assurance of how a noticeableimprovement to bus services will be achieved before congestion charging is introduced.We are also concerned that lit t le preparation appears to have been done with regard tobus route planning to take account of t he impact of congest ion charging. It can take 12months to plan and tender a new bus route so there would appear to be little time for

public consultation on any proposed changes. We were also disturbed that there is lit t leevidence that serious thought has been given to the problems of outer London.

While not stating a view on t he merits of the congest ion charge, the Committee is notpersuaded that the introduction of congestion charging will bring quite the improvementsto bus services that have been suggested, other than by f inancially support ing t he servicefrom the anticipated revenue. Road based congestion is as bad as, and in some casesworse, in outer London than it is in central London and the congestion charge will clearlydo lit t le, if anything, to address this. Clearer targets and projections are required. Theeffects of congestion on bus reliability are quite well understood but on its own thecharge may at best buy t ime, by temporarily freeing road capacity. A longer term and

more comprehensive strategy is required if roads are to be managed in a way that willimprove the performance and attractiveness of bus services and thus encourage people totransfer f rom private to public t ransport.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that, before congestion charging is introduced, the Mayor and TfLshould:

Publish unequivocal information on the quantitative level of improvement that they believewill be achieved in bus services before congestion charging is introduced and how thatimprovement will be measured.

Explain further the role of the congestion charge within the range of initiat ives that willimprove bus performance on Londons roads.


21/48

14

3.4 Outer London

The Committee heard evidence that t he bus is the main mode of public t ransport in outerLondon, accounting for 80 per cent of all public transport journeys. However, publictransport s market share is low and bus operators reported to the Commit tee that roadcongest ion is oft en worse than in central London.

If a substantial reduction in car use and an increase in public transports market share isto occur then t he focus needs to be on t ransport issues in out er London. Witnessesexpressed disappoint ment that the Mayors Transport Strategy fails to address publictransport in outer London adequately and seems to accept the continuing growth of caruse.

The London Buses guide to planning bus services focuses on ensuring services enablepeople to access their local(our italics) amenit ies and t ransport interchanges, rather t hanwhere people might actually want to go, eg major regional shopping and employmentcent res. The result is that many bus journeys in out er London require one or more

changes making it an unattract ive mode to many people. Orbital bus journeys tend totake twice as long as the same journey by car and a quarter of the time is spent waitingfor buses.

Witnesses noted the gradual decline of longer distance orbit al bus routes and the generalabsence of express services. The Commit tee also heard that TfLs desire to expand thebus network in certain locat ions was frustrated by sections within local communitieswhich did not want bus services to operate down t heir street.

Based on the evidence presented to the Committee, we are of t he opinion t hat TfLshould be focusing on increasing its market share of peak period journeys in outer

London. This will assist in reducing traff ic congest ion when it is at it s worst and help toreduce overcrowding on bot h overground and underground rail services. To achieve thiswill require the introduction of faster and more reliable services that are support ed by ahigh degree of bus priority measures which, in t urn, need to be enforced.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the Mayors Transport Strategy is revised to emphasise outerrather than central London where improving public transport has the potential to significantlychange the level of road congestion.

3.5 Funding arrangements for bus services in futureThe Transport Strategy shows the level of London Buses deficit between 1994/ 95 to2000/ 01. This deficit declined from 62m in 1994/ 95 to zero by 1997/ 98. This was dueto a strong increase in revenue, up 10 per cent in real terms, as well as ongoing costreduct ions. However, increasing upward wage pressure, the requirement for newaccessible buses and a freeze in bus fares has led to the deficit rising rapidly to a forecast74m for 2000/ 01. Whilst t he draft Transport Strategy lacks detailed financialinformation with which to assess the sustainability of the proposals outlined within it, theCommittee has been shown the London Buses draft business plan which provides aninsight to future funding requirements.


22/48

15

Source: draft Transport Strategy January 2001* as forecast in the draf t Transport Strategy* * estimated using data from London Buses

For reasons of commercial confidentiality we have not reported t he actual amount ofoperating loss forecast but it is clear t hat a rapidly annually increasing subsidy will berequired to implement all of the Mayors proposals. The subsidy per bus kilometre is, forexample, forecast to increase five fold by 2006/ 7 from the present situation at a timewhen the number of bus kilometres to be operated is planned to increase byapproximately a third. It is not apparent how this increasing funding gap will be financed(ot her than through any revenue raised through t he Mayors congest ion chargingscheme), whether it can be sustainable in the medium to long term or whether it

represents best value.

The reasons for the rapid increase in subsidy are increasing contract prices tendered bybus operators, improved wages for bus crews, overall extension of the bus network and abus fares freeze with a possible overall decrease, thus reducing revenue. Other measuresoutlined in the Transport Strategy including: extension of 24 hour bus routes, additionalconductors, extending Countdown, spending on bus stations, stops and stands.

Despit e these measures and t he fares f reeze passenger numbers are only expected toincrease in line with t he increase in bus kilometres operated. By 2006/ 07 the number ofbus passengers forecast to be carried will be back to the levels last seen in the 1960s butthe number of bus kilometres operated will be back t o levels last achieved in the 1950s.The implication is that by 2006/ 07 TfL will be running t he same mileage as in the 1950sbut carrying 40 per cent fewer passengers, hence the large and increasing subsidyrequired. We have had no sight of the detailed calculations that underpin t his change.

Recommendation 4

The Committee notes with concern the financial sustainability of the proposals relating to busservices outlined in the Strategy and recommends the Assembly monitors this matter and that TfLexplains and better justifies the changes.

London Buses Operating Def icit 1994 - 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1994/95

1995/96

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01*

2006/07**

Year

m(

at2000/01p

rices)


23/48

16

4 Service requirements f rom the users point ofview

The Committee approached it s remit from the passengers point of view wherever

possible, and established a set of priorit ies that can be used to assess bus services. In thissection we consider bus users main requirements.

4.1 What mat ters most to bus users

Table 2 shows the main bus markets in London. With a few minor except ions the presentbus network offers a one product fits all markets approach but each segment of themarket has dif ferent requirements, as shown below.

Table 2: London bus market by journey purpose, age and origin and dest ination

Journey purpose Origin &

Destination

Age group Percentage of total

trips

Cumulative total

Work/ Employers Business Suburban 20-59 15% 15%

Shopping Suburban 60+ 10% 25%

Shopping Suburban 20-59 10% 35%

Education Suburban 16-19 10% 45%

Social Suburban 60+ 5% 50%

Education Suburban 20-59 5% 55%

Social Suburban 20-59 5% 60%

Visit ing friends/ relat ions Suburban 20-59 5% 65%

Work/ Employers Business Central 20-59 4% 69%

Visit ing f riends/ relat ions Suburban 60+ 3% 72%

Work/ Employers Business Radial 20-59 3% 75%

Source: Colin Buchanan and Partners based on data from Transport for London

Based on the analysis above, we identified seven journey types, which are representativeof the majority of trips on the system, as follows:

1. Adult wit h child and/ or shopping travelling in outer London2. Pensioner travelling to friends/ hospital etc some distance away within outer London

area3. Pensioner t ravelling to and from shops in outer London4. Young person t ravelling to school or college in outer London5. Regular commuter t ravelling within central London6. Regular commuter travelling from outer to inner London for work7. Regular commuter t ravelling to and from work or a railway station in outer LondonThe requirements of each group dif fer, as out lined in table 3.


24/48

17

Table 3: Requirements of the seven representative types of customers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A High frequency services x x x x x x x

B Real t ime informat ion at bus stops x x x x x x x

C Reliable service x x x x x x x

D A safe and secure waiting point atthe bus stop

x x x x

E Bus shelter with seats and help/information point

x x x

F Bus stop providing a frequent servicewithin a short walk of home and

close to key destinations

x x x

G Customer service staff at majorinterchanges and busy stops:

x x x

H Ease of obtaining a seat on board x x x

I Low f loor access buses x x x

J Comprehensible network informationat bus stops

x x

K Route maps on buses. x x

L Easy interchange with other busroutes and modes

x x x x x

M Ability to purchase tickets, includingone day bus passes and travelcardsat bus stop

x x x x

N Fast boarding times and journeyspeeds

x x x x

O Waiting facilities capable of copingwith large numbers of passengers x x x

Source: Colin Buchanan and Partners and MORI focus groups

Evidence presented to the Committee from a series of focus groups carried out by MORIconf irms that everyone cares about items A, B and C in table above. Every type ofpassenger wants a frequent service that is reliable and provides good up- to- the-minuteinformation. The evidence also confirmed that most passengers want easy interchangeswith other modes of t ravel. People with mobilit y concerns, as represented by columns 1,2 and 3 in the table, have extra needs as shown in rows E to K, and may not be asconcerned as the regular commuters about speed and more f lexible ticketing.

This evidence and analysis helps to show where the aims in the Mayors Strategy will havemost impact, and may reveal areas where they could have unwelcome side effects. For


25/48

18

example, if the Mayor wishes to concentrate on reducing traffic congestion then theprovision of fast reliable services aimed at commuters will be a key priority. But if hewants to improve services for the majority of present users then more accessible buses,more bus shelters and extending t he network to t hose locat ions presently poorly servedwill have a better return.

Using t he analysis in table 3, the Committee looked in more detail at these factors, all ofhigh importance to many users:

Reliability Frequency Access to t he network Ease of interchange Information provision Journey time Safety and security TicketingOur findings and conclusions are set out below.

4.2 Reliability

Reliability is def ined in this report as meaning a service running t o it s advertisedtimetable, hence an unreliable service encompasses both cancellations and late running.Reliability can be prejudiced by:

Traffic congestion Staff shortages Management responsibilities such as route supervision4.2.1 Traf f ic congest ion

All the evidence presented to the Committee on the matter concurs that trafficcongest ion is a major reason for bus unreliability, and that t his is compounded byinadequate enforcement of exist ing t raff ic regulations. What is changing is the extent ofcongestion which is becoming a problem seven days a week, on many routes for thewhole operating day, and it is often unpredictable in timing and location.

There are differences of opinion about the level of prioritisation that should be given tobuses. Some witnesses want 24 hour, seven day a week bus lanes. Others argued thatthis requires too great a shif t in road space to buses and will not be acceptable to t hepublic, especially if buses do not operate during the whole t ime that a bus lane is so

designated.


26/48

19

It is apparent f rom best pract ice elsewhere in t he UK and Europe, that road based publictransport works best when it is separated from the effects of traffic congestion and isfully int egrated with other modes of t ransport. This would point t o 24 hour operation ofbus priorit y measures. A balance however needs to be struck in allocat ing road space. Areliable bus service can only be provided on heavily congested London roads if bus

priority measures are given a higher degree of importance and are adequately enforced.

Enforcement of bus lanes and traffic regulations is generally perceived by witnesses aspoor. The Committee heard evidence that there are an est imated 12,000 daily parkingoffences on bus routes and these are principally commit ted in central London. Busoperators gave evidence of mixed att itudes to enforcement across London with someboroughs being much more proactive than others. Successful examples of t raff ic laneenforcement were provided to the committee including the use of traffic wardens andparking attendants on buses, and increased use of camera enforcement.

The Committee also heard evidence from TfL that an Enforcement Task Force had beenestablished to provide a more effective, efficient and co-ordinated enforcementcapability and capacity on Londons road network. The Task Force includesrepresentatives from TfL, t he police, Boroughs and the Home Off ice.

Recommendation 5

There needs to be an informed debate around bus priority and enforcement issues, which manybelieve are essential components of increased bus reliabili ty. We do, however, acknowledge thatthere are strongly dissenting views and hence the need for further, urgent discussion on thefollowing:

(a) Whether whole route bus priority measures should be implemented rather than thepiecemeal measures that exist on many routes at present, even those being enhanced

under the London Bus Init iat ive. This will require further road space to be reallocated tobuses, cycles and taxis and away from other road users.

(b) The hours that bus lanes should be operable, eg at least 12 hours a day, seven days aweek with lanes clearly marked by different colouring of the road surface.

(c) Far greater enforcement of bus lane and traffic regulations where they affect bus routes,including increasing the numbers of enforcement staff.

Recommendation 6

The Assembly should monitor the achievements of the Enforcement Task Force.

4.2.2 Staf f shortagesStaff shortages account for some 2.5 per cent of lost bus mileage and there is a highdependency on overtime working. Staff turnover rates across operators vary from zero to50 per cent highlighting the fact that part of the problem relates to individual operatorsown terms and condit ions of employment. The present staff ing dif f icult ies faced bymany operators result s partly f rom unrealist ically priced contracts. With f ive yearcontracts it is sometimes not possible to foresee changes in the labour market, and wagelevels that were relatively att ractive when employment opport unit ies were scarce are nolonger competitive in an increasing tight labour market.

The Commit tee heard mixed views with regard to staff short ages. Some operators are

unable to recruit staff, others are able to recruit but unable to retain staff, and some canboth recruit and retain.


27/48

20

The Committee concluded that most operators fall in to the middle category of beingable to recruit but not to keep their staff . The reasons reported by bus companies as towhy bus crews fail to stay are:

Stress of driving buses in London due t o congest ion

Stress of dealing wit h the public Unsociable hours Poor quality staff who were asked to leave General low morale and poor image of bus drivingOperators reported a wide range of initiatives to attract and retain staff, with mixedresult s. The cost of housing in the capital makes it di f f icult t o recruit staff f rom outsidethe capital. The Mayor has int roduced a shif t bonus payment for bus crews of 20 aweek. It is too early to see what if any impact t his measure will have on staff retent ion. Itis unclear whether it is a once-and-for-all payment or whether further changes are

proposed. It is however clear that t he restriction of the bonus to drivers and conductorsunfairly excludes supervisory and engineering staff on whom the service equally depends.

The Committee heard evidence that the quality of bus crews is also not always what itmight be especially with regard to customer service. Operators stated that problems withrecruitment and retent ion meant t hat t hey had been unable to focus on customer servicetraining.

Operators reported that t he bus industry is st ill very male dominated and f urther steps areneeded to make it more att ractive to women. These range from simple measures such asensuring adequate t oilet facilit ies at layover points to making garages less intimidat ingfor female staff . The Commit tee also notes that the ethnic diversity of drivers of ten doesnot reflect the make up of t he community.

The Committee noted with concern evidence of t he growing shortage of suitablyqualif ied mechanics and engineers to maintain the bus f leets. This group of essentialstaff along with supervisors have not been included in the Mayors bonus payments tobus crews but they are perhaps even more essential to keeping services running. Due tothe greater level of training required there is a long lead time in bringing in new staff, andoperators may face considerable diff icult ies in t he medium term in recruiting suitablepersonnel.

The Committee concluded that t he following measures would assist in t he retent ion and

recruitment of staff as well as increase the status of operational bus staff :

Provision of bett er staff facilit ies at depots, bus stations and layover points especiallytoilet facilit ies which could be included as part of bus shelters at layover points.

Requiring bus operators to provide details of t he ethnic and gender breakdown oftheir staff with the steps they are taking to bring t hem more into line with the make-up of the communit ies which they serve and recruit f rom.

Improve staff security by reducing pot ential areas of conf lict with passengers. Greater contract f lexibility with annual uprating increases linked t o the increase inaverage London wage rates rather than just the retail price index. (This would not


28/48

21

require re-negotiation of contracts rather an annual price inflator built into contractswould take account of movements in London wage rates.)

Classify bus drivers as key workers and improve access to aff ordable housing. Improve drivers t erms and condit ions at the London wide level by, f or example,providing free travel on all public t ransport services in Greater London. Improve training and support for staff to assist in raising the image of bus driving.We summarise in the table below how some of these steps can be measured.

Action Delivered by Performance indicator Timing

TfL funded staff faci li t ies TfL/ Boroughs Proport ion of routelayovers with staff toilets

2-3 years

Monitoring ofgender/ ethnicity ofdrivers

Bus operators Gender and ethnici tycharacteristics of buscrews vis a vis GreaterLondon

1 year

Contract flexibility t otake account of labourmarket dynamics

TfL Via tenderreview

Bus crew turnover 1 year

London wideimprovements in buscrews terms

TfL Bus crew turnover 1 year

The Committee is aware from evidence presented by TfL that some of these measures arebeing considered by TfL and welcomes this.

Given present staff shortages and the increasing use of pre-paid passes the majority ofwitnesses saw litt le merit in the Mayors plan to double the number of conductors by2004 with some want ing exist ing conductors withdrawn. We recognise that conductorsare popular with the public but would argue that it is not so much the conductorsthemselves as the service they represent that passengers really value. Althoughreassuring, there is no evidence that conductors actually improve public safety and

witnesses drew attention to the fact t hat conductors are six t imes more likely to beassaulted than drivers. Safety concerns are better addressed through better bus design,use of modern technology, bett er lit bus stops and public areas, and staffed interchanges.

On busy routes, boarding delays can be a problem with One Person Operated (OPO)buses. Conductors can be an answer, although on existing OPO buses there is no suitableplace to stand which could therefore slow down boarding times. Other solut ions couldinclude t icketing init iatives, such as targets for t he cashless bus, greater of f-bus ticketingand innovat ions in bus designs. If resources are available for extra staff then theCommittee was informed that they should be employed off bus in the role of customercare staff , rout e and t icket supervisors and cleaners at termini.

Any debate about conductors must include a thorough value for money and customer-driven assessment of alternatives.


29/48

22

If the resources are available to recruit additional staff, based on the evidence received,the Committee concluded that they would be better utilised in the following roles:

Customer service staff at main interchanges Off bus rather than on bus conductors providing a range of products including buspasses and travelcards at busy stops Route supervisors to monitor service standards Revenue protect ion staff Cleaners at key termini to clean buses during layoversIf for whatever reason a case can still be made for conductors then this should beconsidered alongside the above options.

Recommendation 7

The Mayor, TfL, and bus operators should work together to develop and report on a staffingstrategy aimed at ensuring enough suitably qualif ied staff are available to deliver high quali ty busservices in London. This should include a focus on the issues highlighted in this report.

Recommendation 8

The Mayor should examine the alternatives outlined above and re-prioritise his policy onincreasing the numbers of on bus conductors.

4.2.3 Route supervision

With regard to day to day operat ions the Committee heard evidence that routesupervision has declined. This was due to a reduct ion in on- rout e supervisors asoperators cut costs given the lack of incentives in t he tendering system to run a regularservice compared with just running the required volume of bus miles. Off routemonitoring via AVL2 and the Countdown system (t ime to next bus information at selectedbus stops) is not as good as it could be due to the unreliability of the equipment and itslack of comprehensive coverage. This may require a new radio system and eventually acompletely new technology.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that :

Future contracts should provide greater incentives to bus operators to provide a reliable andhigh quali ty service using both bonuses and penalties and which does not penalise the use ofroute supervision in contract evaluation.

The reliability of AVL needs to be improved to achieve a higher level of bus operator andpassenger confidence in i t.

2 AVL stands for Automat ic Vehicle Location. It is an electronic information system which t racks thelocation of buses and is used by operators to supervise buses on individual routes.


30/48

23

4.3 Frequency

A significant proportion of bus routes in London operate at very high frequencies.However, there are still many outer London routes where frequencies are low and i fpassengers need to interchange then they can experience long waiting periods and wholejourney times. Waiting t ime can be as high as 25 per cent of total journey t ime for orbit aljourneys in outer London.

Frequency is a key driver of bus patronage, as has been demonstrated on routes thatincreased service f requency when switching from double-decker t o single-deckervehicles. Ways presented t o the Committee of tackling outer Londons high level oft raff ic congestion are to ensure all exist ing bus routes are operated at f requencies thatare high enough to be perceived as turn up and go, and provide a network of expressorbital routes that alleviate the need to travel through central London.

If patronage is so low as to make it impossible to justi fy higher f requency services thenconsideration should be given to investigating the possibility of operating alternative

vehicles such as shared taxis to provide the high frequency that is needed to attractpassengers to the service. This is a novel service area and we appreciate that greaterresearch is needed.

Recommendation 10

In the medium to long term all bus routes should operate at least a 12 minute headway (the levelat which services are perceived as turn up and go) during the day with a minimum 15 minuteservice in the early morning and late evening when reliability is generally better.

Recommendation 11

In the short term TfL should research the potential of replacing low frequency bus services withhigh frequency taxi services.

The Mayors draft Transport Strategy includes the option of express bus services buttakes this no further. We suggest that the express or limited stop bus may serve aparticular use in linking urban centres where no rail route exists. Clearly, this will includemany outer London orbital journeys. We suggest that a pilot be considered on one ormore such rout es, and be both marketed and evaluated.

Recommendation 12

High frequency 18 hour, seven days a week, possibly limited stop, services should be established

linking the main suburban centres in outer London in an orbital fashion.

4.4 Access to the network

It is est imated that some 1 million people live more than 5 minutes walk (400m) from abus stop and it is known that bus usage markedly declines with distance from a stop.Despite recent expansions in the network there are still places that are poorly servedeither by having no bus service or only a low frequency service especially those areasclose to the border of Greater London. The Commit tee was concerned to hear evidencethat some local communit ies are not as support ive as they might be of proposed newroutes in their areas. A mapping exercise is required with an expectation t hat f or those

areas outside of a 5 minute catchment a service solution be considered or a reasonedexplanat ion as to why one is not appropriate be provided.


31/48

24

The introduction of low floor buses has made bus travel easier for a wide range ofpassengers wit h mobil ity problems and has result ed in increased patronage. TheCommittee welcomed the fact that fifty per cent of the bus fleet is already low floor andthe whole fleet, excluding Routemasters, will be by 2008 at the latest . However, thereare drawbacks with the design of such buses including the reduced number of seats on

the lower decks of double-deckers, causing problems for some categories of passengers,and dif f iculties with the reliabilit y of wheelchair ramps. There is also widespread supportfor these to be moved to the front door on the vehicle. However, these teethingproblems are expected to be overcome in due course with f urther technical and designimprovements and possibly also by the int roduction of articulated vehicles.

The commitment by t he Mayor to retain Routemasters on many central London routeswhere the alternative is an equally inaccessible underground network reduces accessibilityto and in the central area for many categories of passenger. Despit e the perceivedwidespread publ ic support for Routemasters, the Commit tee heard lit t le evidence insupport of t hem. Problems wit h accessibi lit y, assault rates on conductors and higheraccident rates sustained by passengers were all put forward as reasons why t hey shouldbe replaced by more customer f riendly vehicles as soon as possible.

Concern was expressed that on some rout es there are proposals for f ully accessible busesto be replaced by Routemasters which is seen as a retrograde step.

There was mixed evidence presented to the Committee on vehicle types with some busoperators wanting more freedom in the type of vehicles they can operate. All operatorswho expressed a view agreed that wheelchair ramps should be placed at the front door ofthe vehicle. This may appear a minor operational issue but is a major issue for bothoperators and disabled users. A lack of garage space meant some operators do notsupport the introduction of articulated vehicles as well as problems in stopping them

adjacent to the kerb. However, other operators are in favour of such vehicles or longersingle-deckers with more doors to speed up boarding and alight ing.

Operators supported steps such as abolishing lay-bys and installing bus boarders thatimproved the ability of buses to re-enter the main traffic flow after calling at bus stops.

Recommendation 13

That TfL identifies those areas more than 5 minutes away from a bus stop that offers a frequencyof least 4 buses an hour and works with Boroughs, local communities and operators to bringforward opt ions to increase the opportunit ies for residents in these areas to access the busnetwork.

Recommendation 14

Increasing further the number of stops with bus shelters and seats and installing morehelp/ information points especially in locations that suffer from high levels of street crime unlessan overriding reason exists not to provide.

Recommendation 15

Providing more bus boarders to enable buses to stop more easily alongside the kerb. This will alsoassist in providing more space for the installation of bus shelters and allow buses to re-enter thetraffic f low more easily.


32/48

25

Recommendation 16

That the Mayor rethinks his policies of retaining Routemaster buses. In the absence of such achange, TfL ensure routes at present served by Routemasters are also served by high frequencyaccessible buses.

Recommendation 17

TfL should reduce its control over bus designs and use London bus operators procurement powersto deliver a better designed range of buses to meet Londons needs. Wheelchair ramps should bespecified for front doors unless TfL or others can find good reason to do otherwise.

4.5 Ease of interchange

The number of interchanges made by passengers between buses and other publictransport modes and between bus rout es is in excess of mill ion a day. The need tochange and poor int erchange facilities are often quoted reasons why people will not use

public t ransport . At present underground stations with high numbers of passengerschanging to and f rom buses eg Brixton require the crossing of busy roads and t here isminimal shelter at stops given the large numbers waiting for buses. A decline in orderlyqueuing at stops makes travel through t hese locat ions very unatt ract ive, part icularly forthose wit h mobility problems. Interchange on the bus network is also expensive as,unlike the Underground, it is not possible to purchase a single t icket f or a journey thatinvolves one or more changes. Whilst cheaper bus passes have been suggested as asolut ion not everyone has easy access to the retail out lets that sell them at the t ime theywish to travel.

Recommendation 18

The Committee believes that interchange needs to be improved in various ways including:

Better information provision. Easier physical interchange between services. Better timed connections between services. Easier ticketing. A greater human presence at major interchanges and busy stops: providing information;

providing the perception of a safer travelling environment and ensuring the less mobile aregiven priority and help in boarding services.

Pilot timed tickets to allow interchange between buses without having to pay again.4.6 Information provision

Information provision at bus stops and elsewhere in London is generally far better thanelsewhere in the UK. There are still areas where further improvements will provideconsiderable benefit s to passengers, although i t is appreciated that space for inf ormationat bus stops is at a premium and priorit ies need to be set based on t he local situat ion.

Even regular users of the network are of ten not aware of all the opt ions available to t hemwhen making a journey that requires one or more changes. One of t he benefits ofcomputerised journey planners has been to make such journeys far easier to plan and

therefore more at t ract ive to potential users. It is disappoint ing that journey planners forTfL services and the underground are still very rudimentary.


33/48

26

The Committee heard evidence of cities where on board bus information ( route maps andannouncements) was considerably better than in London. These are provided on t heunderground and light rail systems in London, leading to an increasing passengerexpectation that similar facilities should be available on the buses.

Witnesses widely welcomed the int roduction of Count down at bus stops. There was somedebate as to whether the priority should be to make it available on routes with lowfrequency services where its benefit to users is greater or on high frequency routes wheremore users will benefit from it . There was also a desire that the information should bemade more readily available at locations other than bus stops.

Recommendation 19

London Buses needs to develop and consult on a customer directed information strategy forbuses. This should include at least the following elements:

A multi- modal computerised journey planner for London available on the internet withterminals available at all major interchanges, shopping centres, key public buildings andeventually at all bus stops.

Route maps on buses showing every stop, interchange possibilit ies and key destinat ion points(i.e. public buildings, tourist att ractions etc)

Trial automatic announcements on bus of all major stops and interchanges Extending the number of stops that list key information and destinations such as hospitals,

shopping centres, parks, leisure centres and how to get t here

Providing maps of the local area as occurs at underground stations at all bus stops Countdown extended to all bus stops.4.7 Journey t ime

There was general agreement in the evidence presented that journey times need to bespeeded up. Whilst this could part ly be delivered by bus priority measures, the 20-25 percent of bus journey times spent at stops has also to be tackled. The majority of evidencepresented supported a move to cashless buses as a way of both increasing boarding timesand reducing some of the drivers workload. However, there is a concern that this will bedetrimental t o the infrequent traveller.

It was also not ed that there are only a very limited number of express bus routes inLondon. The Committee heard mixed views as to the pract icality of int roducing express

services. Some wit nesses suggested t hat congestion meant the express service would justbecome stuck behind a stopping service. Witnesses generally agreed that t here could bea role f or express services to:

speed up orbit al journeys in out er London where public t ransport is at present unableto compete on journey time with the private car

provide fast services into central London f rom locations in outer London that are notwell served by rail

relieve overcrowding on those rail lines that are at present heavily congested


34/48

27

relieve congestion on the underground in central London, if traffic congestion wasreduced via congest ion charging, by extending the Red Arrow network

Recommendation 20

The Committee recommends the following measures to reduce journey times:

Continue examining the feasibilit y of introducing art iculated multi entry-exit vehicles. Introduce more express and limited stop services on high volume corridors to separate short

hop and longer distance journeys.

Consider the extension of the Red Arrow express network in central London. Establish an express, high f requency, pass only or no change network of services with high

quality vehicles operating from outer to central London supported with bus stop based ticketmachines or conductors providing the core ticket types.

Establish a similar express service network based on serving key employment centres in outerLondon marketed as the equivalent of the overground underground.

4.8 Safety and security

Bus travel is extremely safe but bot h passengers and staff have security concerns. Forpassengers these relate to gett ing t o and f rom bus stops, wait ing at bus stops and (to amuch lesser extent ) on board. Graff it i and lit ter on buses can lead to an intimidatingenvironment and act as a deterrent to certain passenger groups.

The Commit tee heard of the success of Operations Seneca and Butler. The former wasaimed at reducing street crime along a major bus corridor by targeting police resourcesand the use of CCTV placed on board buses. The latter, whilst principally concerned with

improving compliance of t raff ic regulat ions by deploying t raff ic wardens on buses, alsoresulted in reducing the fear of crime amongst passengers and bus crews.

Recommendation 21

To further improve safety and reduce the fear of crime the Committee recommends the followingsteps:

Rollout of help points at bus stops. CCTV coverage of bus stops and surrounding areas in locations with high levels of street

crime.

Greater presence of traffic regulation enforcement staff along routes to improve perceptionsof safety as well as ensure compliance with traffic regulations.

Continued rol lout of on board bus CCTV. Provide cleaners at major terminal points to clean the interior of all buses regardless of

operator.

Ensure all bus stops are well lit.This needs to be integrated with a high profile information strategy that focuses onsafety and the protection of staf f.


35/48

28

4.9 Ticket ing

The detailed considerat ion of fare levels and structures is outside the scope of thisinvest igation. However, the Committee heard evidence concerning the relationshipbetween vehicle types and hence boarding times and Londons ticket ing system. The useof mult i-door vehicles that are common in cont inental Europe achieve far faster boardingand alight ing t imes. Many of these services are cashless which also speeds up journeytimes and reduces some of the drivers responsibilities thereby making the job lessstressful. The Commit tee heard evidence in support of cashless buses and furtherencouragement of moves towards the use of pre-paid t ickets rather than paying cash onboard. The Commit tee also heard evidence that changing working patt erns means fewercommuters travel to the same destination at the same time each day of the week soconvent ional t ravelcards are not as att ract ive as they once were. The Prest ige system3

will go some way to t ackling complex t icketing issues but there are, equally, low t echsolut ions. We are generally impressed with the ticketing init iatives being int roduced onthe buses.

To move towards cashless buses requires a mixture of measures. Prest ige wil l clearlycontribute to this. The development of off -bus t icket booths may be a usefuldevelopment in high volume corridors and on routes used by tourists. Fare incent ives topre-purchase are clearly another element. Equalit y issues must be also be considered aspart of any t icket ing strategy.

Recommendation 22

That TfL progress:

The introduction of carnets of one day bus passes and t ravelcards. More bus stop ticket issuing machines and other off-bus ticket issue supported by greater

publicity of the discounts and range of tickets offered.

Recommendation 23

That the Assembly further considers ticketing proposals in its work programme.

3

A new, more sophisticated bus and underground ticketing system which is likely to be extended toother transport- related services in the London area. For example, it will use Smartcards so that int er- andmulti- modal journeys can be made using the same card.


36/48

29

5 Cont racts and operat ional issues

The Committee is aware that the Mayor and TfL initiated in July 2000 a review of theprevious London Buses cont racting system. Unfortunately, while a draft was issued in

November 2000 the publicat ion of this review has been delayed by some six months. Itwas therefore expected t hat t he review was to be published at the same time as thisreport was being draft ed (mid May). As a consequence, this Committee has not beenable to see this review in full as part of this scrutiny. We do however welcome theproposed changes of which we have been made aware to date. A detailed analysis of thereview should be undert aken by t he Assembly as soon as possible.

Based on t he evidence that t he Committee did receive in relation to London Busestendering and contracting arrangements, it is clear that the solution to some of theproblems af fect ing London buses lies in t he contracts under which t he private sectoroperators provide the service.

We heard evidence that until recently bus contracts were awarded by TfL on the basis ofthe lowest cost bid to operate the service and little account was taken of the quality ofservice to be provided.

Operators therefore concent rated on reducing costs by, for example, taking out routesupervisors. The terms and condit ions of employment f or staff also declined considerablyrelat ive to other jobs in the capital as a result . While the only out put assessed by LondonBuses was the number of bus miles operated, operators had no incentive to provide acustomer focused service. Some operators told the Committee that t he quality of servicethey provide under such cont racts in London is lower t han elsewhere in t he UK.

Contracts have been let on both gross and net cost terms:

In a gross cost contract the bus operator bids for the cost of running the busservice including prof it and overheads within this sum. Any cash taken on t he busis handed over to TfL. This means that the operator has no incent ive to increasethe number of passengers carried.

In a net cost contract t he operator eff ect ively takes the revenue that is earned bythe route. In this case, there is a clear incentive to carry more passengers as thiswill increase profitability.

Appendix B gives a worked example.

A net cost approach mot ivates operators, by means of f inancial incentives, t o provide ahigher quality service and att ract more passengers to the network. But it is the morediff icult of the two t o bid for, from the operators point of view, because it contains morevariables. The gross cost opt ion is easier to t ackle.

The Committee heard dif ferences of opinion between the large and small operators,concerning t he use of net cost contracts. Smaller operators generally find that suchcontracts entail too high a degree of risk and cash f low problems. Larger operatorssupport net cost contracts as it gives them much more flexibilit y.

Other dif ferences between the two sizes of operators relate to:


37/48

30

tender specifications: smaller operators prefer detailed specifications to bid againstthereby reducing bidding risk.

transparency: smaller operators want greater transparency as to how contracts areawarded and the prices bid. Details of the winning bids are now published on the

internet.

contract sizes: smaller operators want each individual route contracted out separately.The Committee welcomed evidence that TfL are due to adopt Quality Incentive Contractsas part of their review of the contracting regime and that these will impose higher qualitystandards on operators. The following changes to the contracting regime as a result ofTfLs review are in line with the views and recommendat ions of t he Committee and t heirimplementation will be expected by the Committee:

the higher performance standards in the new quality incentive contracts beintroduced to existing contracts as soon as possible

annual price inflators that include London labour and fuel price increases and not justRPI increases

bonuses related to increased passenger carryings contracts to cont inue being issued on a route by route basis contracts to continue to be for 5 years

higher entry standards for new operators

better facilities for staff at operators premises improved recruitment and training of bus crews at least some pension provision for all staff requirement f or operators to monitor the ethnicity and gender of t heir workforce review of the working of the new Quality Incentive Cont racts in due courseRecommendation 24

The Committee recommends that TfLs new contracting system:

Provides a high qual ity rather than low cost basis for the tendering of bus services. Rewards operators for good performance and penalises poor performance. Encourages operators to at tract more passengers on to t he system. Addresses staffing issues. Delivers best value. Is contained and managed within a business plan that is agreed with the various stakeholders.


38/48

31

6 Need for greater co-operat ion

It is clear f rom the evidence presented t hat t here is a need for greater communicat ion,co-operation and the adopting of common standards across London in many areas that

affect bus operations.

Issues that need t o be addressed and discussed on a regular basis include:

Bus priority measures and enforcement Improving access to the bus network Development of the bus network, siting of stops, ensuring suitable road accessibilit y

for buses

Social inclusivity Driver recruitment and training especially t o address the issue of under representation

of certain groups

Sit ing of bus garages Availability of affordable houses Providing better facilities for bus drivers Improving security for bus passengers Road worksRecommendation 25

The Committee recommends that TfL should facilitate the creation of a co-operative Bus Forum,to be led by bus operators and to include London Boroughs, the Police and the GLA.

This will be in addition and separate from TfLs cross-agency Enforcement Committee.

Recommendation 26

That TfL, in co-operation with the Bus Forum, produce an annual Bus Plan for London in

consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

Recommendation 27

A London Bus Summit should be considered as a part of the proposed new Bus Forum.


39/48

32

7 Summary of Recommendat ions

We list every recommendation below, as it appears in the report , for convenience. Then,in t able 4 and f or those recommendat ions where it is possible to do so, we show how long

we think it might t ake for t he recommendation to be implemented and for its benefit s tobecome clear, together with a suggested performance indicator.

Recommendation1 The Committee recommends that clear short , medium and long term targets are

set for bus services covering market share, patronage, and performance (egaverage journey speeds, reliability, safety) and that the Transport Strategyshould set out a clear priorit ised programme of measures to meet those targets.

2 The Committee recommends that, before congest ion charging is introduced, theMayor and TfL should:

Publish unequivocal information on the quantitative level of improvementthat they believe will be achieved in bus services before congestion chargingis introduced and how that improvement will be measured.

Explain further the role of the congestion charge within the range ofinit iatives that wil l improve bus performance on Londons roads.

3 The Committee recommends that the Mayors Transport Strategy is revised toemphasise outer rather than cent ral London where improving public t ransporthas the potential to significantly change the level of road congestion.

4 The Committee notes with concern the financial sustainabilit y of the proposalsrelating to bus services outlined in the Strategy and recommends the Assemblymonitors this matter and that TfL explains and better just if ies the changes.

5 There needs to be an informed debate around bus priority and enforcementissues, which many believe are essential components of increased bus reliabil ity.We do, however, acknowledge that there are strongly dissenting views andhence the need for further, urgent discussion on the following:(a) Whether whole route bus priority measures should be implemented

rather than the piecemeal measures that exist on many routes at present,even those being enhanced under the London Bus Initiat ive. This willrequire further road space to be reallocated to buses, cycles and taxisand away from other road users.

(b) The housrs that bus lanes should be operable, eg at least 12 hours a day,seven days a week wit h lanes clearly marked by different colouring of theroad surface.

(c) Far greater enforcement of bus lane and traf f ic regulat ions where theyaffect bus routes, including increasing t he numbers of enforcement staff .

6 The Assembly should monitor the achievements of the Enforcement Task Force.

7 The Mayor, TfL, and bus operators should work together to develop and reporton a staff ing strategy aimed at ensuring enough suitably qualif ied staff areavailable to deliver high quality bus services in London.


40/48

33

8 The Mayor should examine the alternatives out lined above and re-priorit ise hispolicy on increasing t he numbers of on bus conductors.

9 The Committee recommends that:

Future contracts should provide greater incent ives to bus operators to providea reliable and high quality service using both bonuses and penalties andwhich does not penalise the use of route supervision in contract evaluation.

The reliability of AVL needs to be improved to achieve a higher level of busoperator and passenger confidence in it .

10 In the medium to long t erm all bus routes should operate at least a 12 minuteheadway (the level at which services are perceived as turn up and go) during theday with a minimum 15 minute service in the early morning and late eveningwhen reliabilit y is generally better.

11 In the short term TfL should research the potential of replacing low frequency

bus services with high frequency taxi services.

12 High frequency 18 hour, seven days a week, possibly limited stop, services shouldbe established linking the main suburban centres in outer London in an orbitalfashion.

13 TfL should ident ify those areas that are more than 5 minutes away f rom a busstop t hat offers a frequency of least 4 buses an hour and works with Boroughs,local communit ies and operators to bring forward opt ions to increase theopportunities for residents in these areas to access the bus network.

14 Increasing f urther the number of stops with bus shelters and seats and installingmore help/ information points especially in locations that suf fer f rom high levelsof street crime unless an overriding reason exists not to provide.

15 Providing more bus boarders to enable buses to stop more easily alongside thekerb. This will also assist in providing more space for the installat ion of busshelters and allow buses to re-enter t he traff ic f low more easily.

16 That the Mayor rethinks his policies of retaining Routemaster buses. In theabsence of such a change, TfL ensure routes present ly served by Routemastersare also served by high frequency accessible buses.

17 TfL should reduce its control over bus designs and use London bus operatorsprocurement powers to deliver a bett er designed range of buses to meetLondons needs. Wheelchair ramps should be specified for front doors unless TfLor others can f ind good reason to do ot herwise.

18 The Committee believes that interchange needs to be improved in various waysincluding: Better information provision. Easier physical interchange between services. Better timed connections between services. Easier ticketing. A greater human presence at major interchanges and busy stops: providing

information; providing the perception of a safer travelling environment and


41/48

34

ensuring the less mobile are given priority and help in boarding services. Pilot timed tickets to allow interchange between buses without having to pay

again.

19 London Buses needs to develop and consult on a customer directed inf ormation

strategy for buses. This should include at least the following elements: A multi-modal computerised journey planner for London available on the

internet with t erminals available at all major interchanges, shopping cent res,key public buildings and eventually at all bus stops.

On bus route maps showing every stop, interchange possibilities and keydestination points (i.e. public buildings, tourist attractions etc)

Trial automatic announcements on bus of all major stops and interchanges Extending the number of stops that list key information and destinations such

as hospitals, shopping centres, parks, leisure centres and how to get there Providing maps of the local area as occurs at underground stations at all bus

stops

Countdown extended to all bus stops

20 The Committee recommends the following measures to reduce journey times: Continue examining the feasibility of introducing articulated multi entry-exit

vehicles. Introduce more express and limited stop services on high volume corridors to

separate short hop and longer distance journeys. Consider t he extension of the Red Arrow express network in central London. Establish an express, high frequency, pass only or no change network of

services with high quality vehicles operat ing f rom outer to central Londonsupported with bus stop based ticket machines or conductors providing thecore ticket types.

Establish a similar express service network based on serving key employmentcentres in out er London marketed as the equivalent of the overgroundunderground.

21 To further improve safety and reduce the fear of crime the Committeerecommends the following steps: Rollout of help points at bus stops. CCTV coverage of bus stops and surrounding areas in locations with high

levels of street crime. Greater presence of traffic regulation enforcement staff along routes to

improve percept ions of safety as well as ensure compliance with t raff ic

regulations Cont inued rollout of on board bus CCTV. Provide cleaners at major terminal points to clean the interior of all buses

regardless of operator. Ensure all bus stops are well lit.

22 That TfL progress: The introduction of carnets of one day bus passes and travelcards. More bus stop t icket issuing machines and other off -bus ticket issue

supported by greater publicity of the discounts and range of tickets offered.

23 That the Assembly further considers t icketing proposals in its work programme.


42/48

35

24 The Committee recommends that TfLs new contracting system: Provides a high quality rather than low cost basis for the tendering of bus

services Rewards operators for good performance and penalises poor performance Encourages operators to attract more passengers on to the system Addresses staff ing issues Delivers best value Is contained and managed within a business plan t hat is agreed with t he

various stakeholders

25 The Committee recommends that TfL should f acilit ate the creation of a co-operat ive Bus Forum, t o be led by bus operators and t o include LondonBoroughs, the Police and the GLA.

26 That TfL, in co-operat ion wit h the Bus Forum, produce an annual Bus Plan forLondon in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

27 A London Bus Summit should be considered as a part of the proposed new BusForum.

Table 4: Summary of recommendations showing implementation times

Recommendat ion 5 Delivery by Performance indicator Timing

(a) Review allocation of roadspace in London

Mayor N/ A 1 years

(b) Traff ic enforcement Boroughs/

Police

Number of parking and bus

lane offences per mile ofbus route

1-2

years

Recommendation 10

All services to operate at least every12 minutes during the day

TfL Via networkreviews andtendering

Proportion of routesoperated that are highfrequency

5 years

Recommendation 11

Research the use of high frequency

taxi/ minibuses on low f requency busroutes

TfL Via network

reviews andtendering

N/ A Researc

h andconsiderfurther

Recommendation 13

Developing high frequency services toareas at present poorly served

TfL Proport ion of residentsliving more than 400mfrom a bus stop with aminimum 15 minuteheadway

5 years


43/48

36

Identification of areas at presentpoorly served by bus

TfL/Boroughs

Proportion of residentsliving more than 400mfrom a bus stop (with aminimum 15 minuteheadway)

1 yearheadwaysubjecttoservice

develop-ment

Recommendation 14

All bus stops provided with shelterswith seats

TfL Proport ion of stopsequipped with shelters withseats

3 years

Recommendation 15

Inst all bus boarders where appropriat e Tf L Proport ion of st ops

equipped with boarders

5 years

Recommendation 16

Provide duplicate high frequencyaccessible buses on routes presentlyserved by Routemasters

TfL N/ A 1 year

Recommendation 19

Mult i-modal journey planner TfL Number of hits on websiteas a proportion ofpatronage

2 years

Journey planner terminals in publicplaces

TfL Number of terminalsavailable

5 years

Local multi modal maps indicatingfrequency of services

TfL N/ A 2 years

On bus detailed route maps TfL Proport ion of buses with aroute map which is correct

1 year

On bus announcements of bus stops TfL Proport ion of buses onwhich announcements aremade

5 years

Interchange maps at applicable busstops

TfL Proport ion of interchangepoints with maps

2 years

Provision of destination informationat bus stops showing whereinterchanges are required

TfL CSS scores on bus stops 2 years

Local area maps at bus stops TfL CSS scores on bus stops 2 years

Tube style bus maps at stops showing

interconnecting services

TfL CSS scores on bus stops 2 years


44/48

37

Roll out Countdown to all bus stops TfL Proport ion of stops withCountdown

5 years

Recommendation 20

Introduct ion of art iculated buses TfL N/ A 5-10years

Introduce express services on highvolume corridors

TfL Average bus speeds 5 years

Extend Red Arrow express service incentral London

TfL aft ercongestionchargingintroduced

Average bus speeds 5 years

High frequency orbital services TfL Average bus speeds 3-5

years

Recommendation 21

Providing help/ information pointsespecially in areas with street crimeproblems

TfL Proport ion of stopsequipped withhelp/ information points

5 years

Provide CCTV coverage of bus stopsand surrounding area that suffer fromhigh levels of street crime

TfL Proport ion of stopscovered by CCTV

3-5years

Provide CCTV on all buses Bus operators viatenderrequirements

Proportion of bus fleetcovered by CCTV

2-3years

Provide cleaners at major terminalpoints for interior cleaning of alloperators buses

TfL CSS scores on cleanliness 1 year

All bus stops lit at night TfL CSS scores on bus stops 1 year

Recommendation 22

Carnet, travelcards TfL Proport ion of revenuetaken off -bus

1 year

Bus stop based t icket machines andinformation

TfL Proport ion of cashless trips 3 years

Recommendation 24

Greater incentives/ penalt ies foroperators to run higher qualit yservices

TfL via tenderreview

Range of customersatisfaction indicators andexcess waiting time

1 year


45/48

38

Appendix A: terms of reference

This report arises from an investigation int o t he quality and performance of bus servicesin London.

1) Purpose

To consider the issues and make proposals that can be pursued to secure the best meansof making short t erm improvements in public transport for London. The Mayor hasalready proposed a number of measures and the study will, as a priority, producerecommendat ions about these proposals. It will also comment on the types and quantumof improvement to bus services that wil l be required if congest ion charging is to beintroduced in central London.

2) Issues to be considered

What is the current performance of buses in

improving bus services

Documents