TfL is planning cuts in bus services: cycling causes ridership decline

[Adlington]

David Leeder of Transport Investment Limited states in the Transport Times

Bus use in London has now fallen c 8-10% from its quarterly peak in Q1 January-March 2014 to the latest data covering the period until June 2018.

Since 2016 cycling has been prioritised in central London to a unique level, removing significant bus capacity along key routes and at key junctions. At the same time, other factors have acted to increase traffic congestion, including the growth of delivery vans and the expansion of Uber-style private hire vehicles.

TfL has consciously chosen to prioritise cycling over buses as the priority user of road space. It seems not to have fully considered the impact such a policy would have on bus use. Bus speeds in central and inner London are now extremely low – in many places at walking speed. The overall cost-benefit case for London's cycling policy remains unclear, but the London experience further highlights the fundamental issue of journey speed in mode choice.
TfL will need to define a clear role for the bus. The London bus is ceasing to be the all-purpose Omnibus we once knew, and will increasingly occupy a niche role between cycling, rail and ride share, serving those who are unwilling or unable to walk and cycle or cannot access rail services. This is an inevitable consequence of the extremely low commercial speed that buses in London can achieve.

In brief: one green policy (cycling) contradicts another (bus ridership).

 

[PeterC]

Agrees with my personal observations in London

 

[Busaholic]

The decline in ridership fits quite well into TfL/ Mayor Khan's plans to reduce the number of buses overall by much the same percentage, though it's clear that central London will bear the brunt of those cuts. Those parts of London which are most dependent on trunk routes into the West End/ City because of poor or non-existent rail links will suffer the most. In theory, some outer London boroughs may get a marginally improved service or two, but even somewhere like Croydon which has (so far) generally bucked the trend of declining usage has seen cuts, one or two quite major. Where this will end isn't clear, Khan appears as dogmatic as his putative leader in refusing to change his policies, in his case the raising of bus fares which would almost certainly bring in extra cash without driving many more off the buses. If he made it clear that any increase in revenue might reverse the 'cuts' policy then imo he'd gain kudos and stop the spiral of decline.

 

[radamfi]

It is inevitable that a strong increase in cycling will result in lower bus ridership. The Netherlands, which has by far the highest cycle mode share of any wealthy country, has a local public transport mode share of about 3%. If bus ridership didn't fall, that would be an indication of a failure of the cycle policy. What counts is the proportion of trips are not carried out by car or taxi.

 

[Busaholic]

It is inevitable that a strong increase in cycling will result in lower bus ridership. The Netherlands, which has by far the highest cycle mode share of any wealthy country, has a local public transport mode share of about 3%. If bus ridership didn't fall, that would be an indication of a failure of the cycle policy. What counts is the proportion of trips are not carried out by car or taxi.

We should not be trying to model ourselves on the Netherlands, a very divided society with some practices which would be regarded as antideluvian by loads of other countries, always excepting the Flemish-speaking parts of Belgium. How many cyclists in Holland wear helmets, for instance? Oh, that would be against their 'liberationist' philosophy, wouldn't it? Cycling is ingrained in the Dutch consciousness, aided of course by the lack of gradients which means reasonably fit older people can partake far more than in the U.K. or most other countries, and provision for bicycles and their riders was made at a time when proper roads were being developed, rather than trying, mostly cack-handedly, to make provision for them in an alien landscape which was never designed for them (in the cities) and which most impacts bus services, as it's often bus lanes which are removed or (as bad) narrowed to make way for them.

 

[radamfi]

We should not be trying to model ourselves on the Netherlands, a very divided society with some practices which would be regarded as antideluvian by loads of other countries, always excepting the Flemish-speaking parts of Belgium. How many cyclists in Holland wear helmets, for instance? Oh, that would be against their 'liberationist' philosophy, wouldn't it? Cycling is ingrained in the Dutch consciousness, aided of course by the lack of gradients which means reasonably fit older people can partake far more than in the U.K. or most other countries, and provision for bicycles and their riders was made at a time when proper roads were being developed, rather than trying, mostly cack-handedly, to make provision for them in an alien landscape which was never designed for them (in the cities) and which most impacts bus services, as it's often bus lanes which are removed or (as bad) narrowed to make way for them.

Helmet wearing culture is particularly entrenched in the Anglosphere, and is even the law in Australia. The mandating or promotion of wearing helmets has the primary effect of reducing the amount of cycling and English speaking countries have a particularly low cycle usage. Helmets are not compulsory in the UK but have become de facto. The Dutch have long realised the best way of keeping cyclists safe is to provide separated infrastructure and mandating helmets would reduce cycling, meaning more car use, less exercise and therefore more obesity and therefore more deaths. Cycle usage was quite considerable in the UK before mass car usage and just like in the Netherlands fell dramatically as people were mostly scared off cycling due to the danger from motor vehicles. The Dutch built cycle paths in the countryside but not many in the towns. That changed in the 1970s due to the now famous "stop de kindermoord" protests and urban streets were retrofitted to accommodate cycle paths.

Hills have long been an excuse why Britain can't do cycling, ignoring the fact that people cycled a lot before mass car usage, but now that we have electric bikes, that excuse has gone. The massive growth of electric bikes in the Netherlands has meant that the Dutch elderly can now cycle well into their old age. Bizarrely, they are still largely unknown in the UK despite a more hilly landscape.

The Netherlands probably has the best bus priority in Europe, showing that it is possible to have both exceptional bus priority and a comprehensive segregated cycle network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many cyclists in Holland wear helmets, for instance? Oh, that would be against their 'liberationist' philosophy, wouldn't it?

No, it's because cycling is considered a safe day-to-day activity to be done in normal clothing due to their excellent system of segregated cycle paths.

Milton Keynes, which has a similar network of off-road cycle paths, has a similarly low level of helmet use.

 

[jon0844]

Electric bikes are starting to appear, and sadly it seems the people buying them are the exact people you'd want NOT to have one. They can go really fast (likewise motored scooters) and I'm sure we're going to have a few accidents involving them to come, with harsher injuries than a standard pedal bike.

I totally agree that if we had more cycle lanes, the need for a helmet would be reduced, although as we gradually get more and more e-bikes and speeds go up, then there will be plenty of opportunities for serious injury without having to come close to a car, bus, lorry.

I know the EU restricts the speed, but it seems that it's quite easy to 'hack' bikes to go faster, and naturally there's an industry that promotes the fact that they make bikes that can go much faster (for off-road use, obviously, wink wink).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I totally agree that if we had more cycle lanes, the need for a helmet would be reduced, although as we gradually get more and more e-bikes and speeds go up, then there will be plenty of opportunities for serious injury without having to come close to a car, bus, lorry.

It would be reasonably easy to mandate helmet use for assisted bicycles but not regular ones, of course.

 

[edwin_m]

This is from the USA but pertinent to the helmet issue:
https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/very-last-post-bike-helmets-i-promise-really.html

...also notes, as we have many times, that the countries with the highest rate of helmet use have the highest death rate among cyclists. The Netherlands, with the lowest rate of helmet use, has the lowest death rate. Does this mean that helmets cause deaths? Of course not, it means they have the infrastructure and the traffic laws that keep people on bikes safe. They have more people on bikes, and there is safety in numbers.

 

[PeterC]

It is inevitable that a strong increase in cycling will result in lower bus ridership. The Netherlands, which has by far the highest cycle mode share of any wealthy country, has a local public transport mode share of about 3%. If bus ridership didn't fall, that would be an indication of a failure of the cycle policy. What counts is the proportion of trips are not carried out by car or taxi.

The problem isn't more people on bikes it is less road space for buses.

 

[radamfi]

The problem isn't more people on bikes it is less road space for buses.

The Netherlands probably has the best bus priority in Europe, showing that it is possible to have both exceptional bus priority and a comprehensive segregated cycle network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem isn't more people on bikes it is less road space for buses.

That is not the reason for cuts. Reduced income is the reason for cuts.

TBH I think central London's bus network would justify a complete redesign, so now might not be a bad time to look at it.

 

[duncombec]

Helmet wearing culture is particularly entrenched in the Anglosphere, and is even the law in Australia. The mandating or promotion of wearing helmets has the primary effect of reducing the amount of cycling and English speaking countries have a particularly low cycle usage. Helmets are not compulsory in the UK but have become de facto. The Dutch have long realised the best way of keeping cyclists safe is to provide separated infrastructure and mandating helmets would reduce cycling, meaning more car use, less exercise and therefore more obesity and therefore more deaths.

I have heard this suggestion before, and I remain unconvinced that the two are directly linked. Are you really suggesting that people won't cycle because wearing a helmet messes up their hairdo? Whether on a segregated Dutch cycle path, an off-road trail or on a major UK road, the fact remains that if you fall off and hit your head, you remain at risk of serious injury. You do not need a car to have an accident - a large tree branch on a pleasant ride through the country is all it requires.

What's more, there has been a notable increase in cycling since the uptick in Britain's professional road cyclists since the start of this decade (remember the days where we had Chris Boardman and David Millar as our sole lights in the sport?) - and in that same time the wearing of cycle helmets has become compulsory in the sport, after much debate. Why do children attempt to emulate their favourite football (or other sports) players, yet wouldn't go out on their bikes because their favourite cyclists wear a helmet? Do we suggest that having to wear a seatbelt reduces driving? Wearing protective equipment lowers takeup of Rugby? I think not.

The fact that traffic speeds (for all traffic) have slowed as a direct result of the introduction of cycle lanes is patently obvious to anyone who has actually been to London before and after and seen the results.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TBH I think helmets are entirely incidental to this issue.

Is traffic slowing in London a bad thing? I'm not convinced it is. Really, there needs to be less traffic anyway - including filthy diesel buses.

 

[Deerfold]

That is not the reason for cuts. Reduced income is the reason for cuts.

TBH I think central London's bus network would justify a complete redesign, so now might not be a bad time to look at it.

Reduced income is a reason.

As is increased congestion - for several years contracts with operators have kept increasing the numbers of buses for the same service.
Increased congestion is caused by many things - removal of bus space in favour of cycling space and some poorly designed junctions are included in these. In 2013, TfL admitted congestion was back at 2003 levels. After the introduction of the Congestion Charge I resumed using the bus for certain direct journeys that had previously been quicker on the tube with a change. Many of these are no longer quicker - and some now need a change, or will soon.

Bus publicity has got worse in the last few years (coinciding with an increase in the number of changes). A number of spider maps at stops are now out of date and TfL no longer produces network maps. Mike Harris produces some very good maps, but the average visitor to London may not know about those or want to pay out for them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it would be preferable to simplify the central network so less publicity material is required, personally. The "Metrobus" networks in German cities such as Hamburg I think would provide a good model for this.

 

[radamfi]

I have heard this suggestion before, and I remain unconvinced that the two are directly linked. Are you really suggesting that people won't cycle because wearing a helmet messes up their hairdo? Whether on a segregated Dutch cycle path, an off-road trail or on a major UK road, the fact remains that if you fall off and hit your head, you remain at risk of serious injury. You do not need a car to have an accident - a large tree branch on a pleasant ride through the country is all it requires.

What's more, there has been a notable increase in cycling since the uptick in Britain's professional road cyclists since the start of this decade (remember the days where we had Chris Boardman and David Millar as our sole lights in the sport?) - and in that same time the wearing of cycle helmets has become compulsory in the sport, after much debate. Why do children attempt to emulate their favourite football (or other sports) players, yet wouldn't go out on their bikes because their favourite cyclists wear a helmet? Do we suggest that having to wear a seatbelt reduces driving? Wearing protective equipment lowers takeup of Rugby? I think not.

The fact that traffic speeds (for all traffic) have slowed as a direct result of the introduction of cycle lanes is patently obvious to anyone who has actually been to London before and after and seen the results.

It is not just because a helmet will mess up your hair. It is the inconvenience of having to carry a helmet around, and the sheer unpleasantness of wearing one. A car seat belt is not the same, as the seat belt remains in the car and does not materially affect the driving experience. Utility cycling on a segregated path at low speed is very safe and so the mere suggestion of wearing a helmet makes the activity sound more dangerous than it actually is. You might as well mandate helmets for running as some people can run faster than 25 km/h (the speed that electric bikes stop providing assistance). The key to success is to make cycling as natural as an activity as possible, something that you would allow a young child to do unaccompanied. It is not supposed to be something that you only do if you are prepared to take the risk.

There is a huge difference between sports cycling and utility cycling. Cycling for sport is much more dangerous and the Dutch will wear a helmet when on a racing bike at speed, even on a segregated path. The Dutch even have a different word for that kind of cycling. Utility cycling is "fietsen" and sport cycling is "wielrennen".

 

[Deerfold]

TBH I think helmets are entirely incidental to this issue.

Is traffic slowing in London a bad thing? I'm not convinced it is. Really, there needs to be less traffic anyway - including filthy diesel buses.

All new TfL buses are hybrids or electric. Traffic slowing does not usually mean less traffic overall, it just means the peaks get longer and longer and more and more roads are involved.

 

[PeterC]

That is not the reason for cuts. Reduced income is the reason for cuts.

TBH I think central London's bus network would justify a complete redesign, so now might not be a bad time to look at it.

Of course it isn't the reason for cuts, we weren't talking about cuts. If you had taken the trouble to read the thread you would have known that we were talking about reductions in ridership.

 

[radamfi]

All new TfL buses are hybrids or electric. Traffic slowing does not usually mean less traffic overall, it just means the peaks get longer and longer and more and more roads are involved.

Hybrids are still pretty filthy though. Other countries realised that long ago and are only interested in going straight from normal diesel to fully electric. The only really clean buses are fully electric ones, although you still have some particulates from brakes and tyres.

 

[radamfi]

Increased congestion is caused by many things - removal of bus space in favour of cycling space and some poorly designed junctions are included in these. In 2013, TfL admitted congestion was back at 2003 levels.

But buses are still fast at 6.30 am, when buses are almost at full daytime service levels but overall traffic levels are much lower. Cycle superhighways are only on a few routes. Blame would be more appropriately targeted at commercial vehicles and taxis (black taxis, Ubers and other minicabs).

 

[Mojo]

Blame would be more appropriately targeted at commercial vehicles and taxis (black taxis, Ubers and other minicabs).

Probably Uber more than anything else. I went to an event on Saturday night which finished at 2am, and only us and another couple caught public transport home, everyone else booked an Uber private hire vehicle. I should imagine just five years ago (although Uber launched in London in 2012 it took a while to take off) this would have been the demographic that wouldn't have even thought about any other mode of transport than the Night Bus service. This is even more shocking when you consider that it has probably never been easier to get around London on weekend nights thanks to the Night Tube and Overground services.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Hybrids are still pretty filthy though. Other countries realised that long ago and are only interested in going straight from normal diesel to fully electric. The only really clean buses are fully electric ones, although you still have some particulates from brakes and tyres.

Not really the case. Brussels has recently announced a large hybrid bus order https://www.electrive.com/2018/09/11/brussels-places-major-hybrid-bus-order-with-iveco/ and you'll see plenty in Paris and Barcelona among other places. Even the Netherlands are also going for hybrids http://transporttalk.co.nz/news/netherlands-upping-electric-hybrid-buses

However, as a avowed cyclist, public transport devotee and car driver, I can see the various views of cycle use.

FWIW, I'm not bothered if bus use has fallen; the comparator should be reductions on car use and variations of (e.g. ubers, hackney cabs, etc). The fact is that if you have the correct infrastructure, then cyclists would not need (or feel the need) to wear a helmet. In defence of Radamfi, if you do travel to Denmark or the Netherlands, then you do see superb, segregated infrastructure. All too often, cyclists are forced to share a footpath that is usually in poor condition, or riding in the gutter with little regard to how integration with other traffic is managed. In that respect, UK cyclists would be foolhardy not to wear a helmet and indeed, one of my friends can count himself lucky to be alive having been wiped out by a car. Fortunately, he escaped just with a double leg break

As Radamfi right points out, there is a difference between trundling around on a bike for commuting/leisure/mooching purposes on any old bike and also the more performance aspect on some ultra-lite carbon road bike where speeds will be higher. For the latter (and for things like serious mountain biking), a helmet will always be necessary but for general pottering, the Danes and Dutch have managed to create infrastructure that renders it almost superfluous. We're just nowhere near on that score at the moment!

IMO, we've seen London's transport increasingly politicised. I didn't have much time for Ken but I feel he was trying to do the right thing, even if it upset some. Cut to Boris who rolled back the Western extension of the congestion charge and, whilst introducing SuperCycleHighways has done so at the risk of neutering buses rather than tackling the explosion of minicabs and ubers etc, let alone private cars. Then you have Sadiq who has similarly used the buses for political gain with the hopper fare but resulting in the squeezing of already tight budgets further, necessitating further cuts to the network.

Perhaps it might be better if Sadiq very nicely upped the congestion charge (it's only increased by £1.50 in 8 years nearly), reduced or removed some roadside parking so that space could be provided for either improved bus priority or cycle lane provision.

 

[Deerfold]

But buses are still fast at 6.30 am, when buses are almost at full daytime service levels but overall traffic levels are much lower. Cycle superhighways are only on a few routes. Blame would be more appropriately targeted at commercial vehicles and taxis (black taxis, Ubers and other minicabs).

I'm not quite sure of the relevance of 0630. What proportion of Londoners is travelling to work at that time? Some, for sure - and they'll be much slower in the other direction. I did point out that Cycle superhighways are not the only culprit, but many have removed road space from buses rather than other traffic (I'm in favour of them in theory). Taxis are indeed a major cause of pollution in London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Taxis are indeed a major cause of pollution in London.

But also of disruption to bus services from stopping in bus lanes. Significant benefit would be obtained if laybys were created as "taxi stops" on red routes and taxis no longer allowed to load on the road itself.

 

[radamfi]

I'm not quite sure of the relevance of 0630.

To emphasise that other motor vehicles than buses are the main source of congestion. Buses are almost at normal daytime frequency but the volume of motor vehicles at that time is a lot lower than later in the day.

 

[Deerfold]

To emphasise that other motor vehicles than buses are the main source of congestion. Buses are almost at normal daytime frequency but the volume of motor vehicles at that time is a lot lower than later in the day.

Yes, I didn't doubt that for a moment. That doesn't mean the cycleways haven't removed road space (including some bus lanes) from buses.

 

[radamfi]

Yes, I didn't doubt that for a moment. That doesn't mean the cycleways haven't removed road space (including some bus lanes) from buses.

Then one of the remaining lanes should have become a bus lane, unless there is only one lane left. But if we got rid of all the unnecessary traffic, then there would be no need for bus lanes at all. We are talking about zones 1 and 2 so there should be little need for taxis and private cars for most if not all of the day. Criticise the failure to stop the roads filling up, rather than the existence of the very few cycle paths.

 

[Deerfold]

Then one of the remaining lanes should have become a bus lane, unless there is only one lane left. But if we got rid of all the unnecessary traffic, then there would be no need for bus lanes at all. We are talking about zones 1 and 2 so there should be little need for taxis and private cars for most if not all of the day. Criticise the failure to stop the roads filling up, rather than the existence of the very few cycle paths.

I haven't criticised the existence of cycle paths. I've criticised the reduction of space for buses caused by the way they've been introduced.

Personally, I don't see why taxis should be allowed to use bus lanes.