Just how to do you tackle congestion? Do the Belgians have an answer?
As you crawl through Upper Parkstone, wait over an hour in your car trying to leave Castlepoint, spend the best part of 20 minutes stop-starting your way out of Poole town centre, you have to wonder whether there’s a better way.
So, Wilts & Dorset’s Alex Carter has the temerity to suggests one. Congestion charging from 2016. This to avoid gridlock by 2016. 2016? Try any south Dorset summer. There’s even tentative support from Bournemouth’s chamber of trade & commerce for at least *considering* the idea, albeit not till 2016. Categorically no plans from Bournemouth council though, unless forced. And 85 per cent of Echo readers are negative towards the idea.
So, what’s left to do? A voluntary approach to make buses more attractive to motorists. This is the chamber of trade’s preferred approach. But isn’t that *exactly* what both Transdev Yellow Buses and W&D have been doing for five years? Cross-conurbation services, air-con, leather seating, investment in low floors, 2+1 seating, frequency enhancements—and 40 per cent growth. Why, then, are all roads seemingly still gridlocked? And how bad would they be without these commercial initiatives? Is it inevitable that there’s only so much you can do to improve the perception of a bus service?
The 71,000-strong Belgian city of Hasselt has virtually no congestion. The city’s said to have ‘come alive’. It hasn’t introduced congestion charging or specifically banned the private car, though many areas are pedestrianised. Instead, enhanced bus services are free to all. In just over ten years, Hasselt has seen an increase in use of 1,300 per cent. Because my Walloon isn’t up to par, it’s difficult to understand the costs and benefits. Capital and revenue investment in buses is no doubt substantial. But then again, there are fewer requirements for ultra-expensive road projects.
Would such a project ever be considered in Engalnd, even as a trial? Thee are probably too many memroies of cheap fares in the so-called People's Republic of South Yorkshire.
Saturday, 17 January 2009
From Bournemouth to Belgium
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
http://omnibuses.blogspot.com/2008/12/free-for-all.html !?!
The idea is not as wild as it may at first seem if it seen in the context of an Integrated Transport Policy, requiring long term commitment from local, regional and national government.
Hasselt has a municipal population of 70,000 and a hinterland population of 300,000.
The city network is free to everybody. The regional network is free to city residents, on production of their identity card, within the municipal boundary. Passengers from out of town pay a normal fare.
Ridership has increased from 360,000 in 1996 to 4,600,000 in 2006. This figure has suggests a high level of ridership. This has gone from three routes with 18,000 service hours per year to eleven routes in 2006 with 95,000 service hours per year at a cost of 5.1 million Euro. The local government pay 26% of this (1% of their total annual budget) with the balance covered by national government under a long-term agreement.
The size and shape of the city has much to do with the success of the scheme, as has the fact that there is only one operator of regional buses - De Lijn. At the same time as developing the bus network there was a whole host of traffic management measures to ensure that everything worked together.
Our current system of local government funding and accountability, and the way in which it interacts with national government and private entreprise present a very different scenario.
With an enormous amount of effort and goodwill such schemes may be possible in this country, but that would require a major step change in thinking.
Our neighboring city of Chapel Hill, NC, charges no fares for it's extremely successful operation. Of course, there's no such thing as a free meal, so the property taxes there are higher than ours, but not by much. Here in Durham, a flat fare of $1 is charged, but a $2 day pass is available for unlimited travel. Bus ridership is increasing all over the US and has remained steady following the decrease in gas prices. Obviously people are finding the bus an alternative.
I guess there are two principal questions - one is who will pay for such a scheme; and the second is, would it work in the UK?
From my previous employment in a multinational concern, colleagues in Belgium used to tell me that taxes were at a relatively high level there, so perhaps that answers the first question, in that there is probably more money available in the public coffers in Belgium. Will the British electorate want to part with more of their money to fund such schemes? I guess the recent ballot in Manchester may offer a pointer to that.
I'm not sure if there is any recent evidence on the second point, but from what I recall, when experiments with reduced fares have been carried out in the UK, the hoped-for increases in patronage have not materialised. I understand that there have also been occasional instances of services being operated free, but perhaps it would need a trial covering a complete network to provide a valid comparison. Without adequate funding, I would imagine that even that would not take place.
I seriously doubt that simply providing bus services free (at the point of use) is actually going to increase ridership. You have to remember that motorists are already paying for their form of mobility, and indeed paying quite an high price, and one must recognise that they are prepared to pay that price. Therefore, any alternative solution needs to offer something better - possibly also better value for money, but definitely something that offers better mobility than they get at present from their cars. Maybe buses need to be quicker, or able to bring them nearer to their destinations - if that were the case, then I guess motorists might be prepared to give up their cars for those journeys. The majority of motorists are probably already paying more than they would for public transport, particularly if they regularly travel alone, so I don't believe that cost alone is the deciding factor for them.
Incidentally, I'm a little perplexed as to why Anonymous (10:04) says that having only one (monopoly) operator contributed to the success of the scheme in Hasselt. Given that no fares are being charged, all revenue to the bus operator must come in some form of contract payment, so I would have thought that the existence of a few competing potential contractors would be beneficial to the scheme? As it is, I understand that De Lijn is effectively part of the Flanders regional government - in effect responsible for both planning and operating the services.
I did find a report of a press release in English to celebrate 10 years of the scheme in Hasselt (http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=201965), which contains the rather unusual comment: 'However, there is also a social benefit. Visits to hospitals have increased significantly.' Read into that what you will.
The reference to there only being one operator (Anonymous 1004) was trying to indicate that for planning purposes there were no conflicting interests which, had there been more than one, there might have been. This is very much as you have picked up in your conclusion. Apologies for not making that clear.
What worries me most is that a free fare system with a state run bus company is that there is only a limited incentive to improve services. A sub-optimal network could continue as there is no revenue implication of, say, focusing on the cross-conurbation services. There is certainly no incentive to focus on quality bus services. It would be easy to cut funding for buses when budgets get tight. And it would be difficult to increase funding from buses when you find certain parts of the network get busy.
Post a Comment