Tag: transport

  • E2 Who or what is the bus’ real competition?

    E2 Who or what is the bus’ real competition?

    In most other industries and markets, there is usually a clear definition of who the competitor is, or at least it’s quite obvious. It depends on the market and product line but you can probably rhyme them off: Apple and Microsoft, PlayStation and Xbox, Corsa vs Micra.

    The bus, and especially publicly owned buses, the question is not quite so straightforward. Think back to the early deregulated days and a humble bus start up could list all its main rivals. The bus wars of old have receded as the industry consolidates once more. Today, in cases where there are more than one operator on a route, generally there is a lack of enthusiasm for cut throat competition. Not saying it doesn’t still happen, but it’s becoming rarer to witness.

    So who or what is the bus industry really competing against?

    No, it’s not the car, although things would certainly be smoother without it.

    Long ago travelling used to be a lot harder. If you didn’t have a horse you’d be on two feet or on the back of someone’s cart. This limited where you could go and what you could do. Back then travelling for leisure didn’t really exist for the working classes with most travel occurring out of necessity. Then along came the bus, tram and railway under various propulsions. Travelling quickly became something that could be packaged and sold. One-way from town to the factory. Those with money were able to travel more quickly to spas and summer homes. The need to travel started to change and moved from necessity to desirability. People could live just that little bit further from the centre, there were coach and railway trips to the seaside, and the ability to seek work in adjacent towns.

    Fuelled by all these new desires and needs, the motorcar came to prominence, opening up the whole country. As the 20th century progressed more and more ordinary families bought their first cars and were able to choose more widely where they went on their much-anticipated holidays and wider choice of shopping and employment destinations.

    The ubiquitous nature of moving around by the different modes made travel as a concept into a commodity. All transport modes have contributed to the idea that you can travel whenever you want; wherever you want. Once travel became something that people took for granted, just like we take for granted that you can get a loaf of bread or a bottle of milk from a supermarket, our lifestyle choices shifted to expect that we should be able to do anything we want at any time. With the key word here being do and not travel.

    Businesses opening 24-hour factories and warehouses, hospitals and schools being built in the middle of nowhere, retail parks built away from any kind of transport system – including the roads to serve them.

    Planners thought the car was the mortal enemy of the industry, until the rise of Uber and the likes. Hackney cabs and private hire had been working within their distinct niches, alongside public transport, but here was a new technology and concept that dramatically shifted the playing field. Uber satisfied that primal need – the ability to travel anywhere, at any time. For the privilege of paying the going demand-responsive rate you can see the vehicle and driver, estimate of the cost, estimated travel time and possibly the most game-changing of all, you could track the vehicle.

    The public transport industry has attempted to catch up with vehicle tracking, with real-time information, but it’s not the same. There’s something personal and individual about the app showing “your” car, to “your” destination, from “your” home, and so on.

    Initially, some thought the likes of Uber would complement public transport, be that last sore point of the journey between home and the station and back again, and the utopian ideal of everyone ditching their cars for Uber accounts and their local public transport mode of choice. It didn’t happen that way. (Just as it hasn’t happened with walking or cycling). Instead tech-savvy users saw it as their escape from public transport and its confinement. No longer bound by timetables and location constrictions they were finally free to go anywhere, at anytime.

    But even Uber isn’t the competitor, although it’s a worthy adversary.

    Convenience and instant gratification are fuelling the challenges facing the whole travel industry. Want to watch a film; sit in your home theatre room and watch at your leisure. Ready for your weekly big shop; order a slot on-line at your supermarket of choice. And so on. Whether it be working from home, social media, home bars and saunas, the modern world seems to be obsessed with keeping people at home.

    A glimpse of change

    The pandemic period was the accelerant for many of the travel industry’s woes, but despite the lifting of restrictions people have not wholly returned to their regular habits. Working in the office for a whole week is now seen as some kind of oppression. There are changes happening. They’re slow but they’re happening. Little trendy micro breweries, independent picture houses, farmers markets and more little pockets rejecting the antisocial behaviours emboldened in the past two decades.

    Where the success stories appear are where companies not only understand their markets, but build experiences into the journey and build trust with new and existing users. Transdev’s The Witchway or Route 36 are high profile, high specification examples where style, comfort, experience and trust all come together. There are travellers who willingly use these services in preference to the train, or even the car. That is success driven by the experience.

    By Aubrey – https://www.flickr.com/photos/wltmauc/54520242920/, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=165294580

    The companies and routes may not compete directly with online shopping or streaming services, or even working from home, but by considering the whole travel experience they stand a chance at challenging the antisocial blight that has gripped the nation. If you do decide to venture out to Manchester or Leeds, to experience real night life or an event, there’s a luxurious regular double decker that will transport you there. Have friends with you? Nab one of the tables upstairs and have a good natter before you arrive. Even an Uber can’t compete with that.

    Kind regards,

    JP | Greater Buses

    26th May 2026

  • E1 What does winning look like for bus?

    E1 What does winning look like for bus?

    The bus industry sits in its quiet corner of the industrial world, minding its own business, its activities blending into the daily hustle and bustle of life. Entry into the industry is typically very different to other sectors. Starting a new bus company, whether that be as a bus operator, manufacturer or authority is, again, very different.

    These differences have served to both help and hinder the industry, and in the case of operating and designing bus networks, the differences have led to a fragmentation to the quality of service received by customers across the country.

    I start a new series of essays exploring this issue with strategy, management and leadership in mind. I will apply current business and commercial thinking to the bus operating industry and see if there are things we can learn from mistakes made by others and their successes.

    What does winning look like?

    Before we can learn from others we first must understand what it is we’re comparing them to. We need to understand what winning looks like.

    Bus operation is a multifaceted industry. A win in one area could be a loss in another. Diverting a high frequency service off into a housing estate may be a win for the local residents, but for the new and existing customers travelling from each side of the diversion it could mean longer journey times, missed connections, and the potential for a loss in reliability and punctuality. Definitely a loss.

    A new route connecting a retail park with low patronage could appear as a win for the town or retail park’s sustainability goals, but could mean resources diverted from potential higher patronage opportunities that don’t hold the same moral standing.

    It’s this conflict in priorities, across lots of issues and challenges, that creates the perfect ground for strategy to appear. Winning is not universally agreed.

    If we don’t define what the strategy is, no clear picture of winning, then all what you have is planning and activity, which leads into the illusion of strategy and subsequent races to the bottom, or for ever more efficiency.

    So what is winning? Winning is not a document, a statement, or a collection of thoughts, it’s a clear, specific definition of success in a particular area. If you haven’t defined your win, your lofty visionary goal, then you have nothing to aim for. It’s different to a company vision or mission statement as it forces you to choose. It forces the uncomfortable.

    A humble bus company may have a vision to provide the best service in Lancashire, comparable to that of any major European operator, but it doesn’t tell us what the win looks like or how to achieve it. Because the bus industry doesn’t have a single definition of success, it instead competes on priorities. The passenger wants speed, the operator efficiency, the local authority coverage, and so on.

    Aesop’s fable telling of the father and son travelling with the donkey sums this one up perfectly. You can’t please everyone all the time. So the bus industry spreads itself too thinly, trying to please everyone.

    From my analysis of the industry over the years, the success stories have one thing in common, they have defined what winning looks like and what they’ll do to get it. The ones that struggle also have one thing in common, they lack a coherent message of what they believe their success looks like. A good first example would be the Oxford Tube. 24 hour express departures between Oxford and London 7 days a week. Want a stopping service? Sorry you’re not their customer. Want 24 hour access to London from Oxford? Right this way.

    By km30192002 – https://www.flickr.com/photos/km30192002/53284652423/, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=139513614

    Conclusion

    The Oxford Tube is not trying to be everything to everyone. It has made a choice. It knows who its customer is, what they value, and what it’s willing to sacrifice in order to deliver it.

    That clarity is what allows it to succeed.

    This is where much of the bus industry struggles. In attempting to satisfy all competing priorities, it risks satisfying none. Services become slower, less reliable, and harder to understand. The very things that matter most to passengers are diluted in the process.

    Winning, therefore, is not about doing more. It’s about choosing what matters, and committing to it.

    For bus, winning will look different depending on the context. A rural network may define success through coverage and accessibility. An inter-urban corridor may define it through speed and frequency. A town network may define it through simplicity and reliability.

    But in all cases, the principle remains the same.

    Winning is a choice.

    And until that choice is made clearly and consistently, the bus industry will continue to operate in the space between ambition and outcome, mistaking activity for progress.

    Kind regards,

    JP | Greater Buses

  • Area Analysis: What it really means

    Area Analysis: What it really means

    This post is part of the Area Analysis Series, expanding on the free Strategic Framework PDF.

    If you’ve already downloaded the PDF, you’ll know that Area Analysis is the first stage of network planning. Here, we’re taking a closer look at what that really means. We’re filling out the short notes in the framework with deeper insights and examples.

    Haven’t got the PDF yet? You can download here or subscribe on Substack to get it delivered straight to your inbox.

    Subscribe

    The first step

    Area Analysis is the very first step in reviewing or designing a bus network. At this stage, we’re not getting into timetables, stand times, or even vehicles but stepping back and asking: What is the wider environment or context in which this network exists?

    It’s a strategic, high-level look across the whole area. Instead of getting distracted by the detail, you zoom out to see the big picture:

    • The towns and cities that make up the area.
    • The boundaries that define it and the places that lie beyond.
    • The connections that already exist by bus, rail, or road.
    • The destinations of importance: hospitals, industrial estates, retail parks, schools, and more.

    By viewing the area from a higher level than would normally be the case, you can spot insights that might otherwise be missed. Perhaps there’s an industrial estate just beyond the boundary that has no bus link, or a neighbouring town with strong cross-boundary potential.

    This stage is about planting seeds. Ideas and observations that can later grow into full recommendations. Done properly, Area Analysis ensures that a review doesn’t simply follow pre-set strategies or assumptions. Instead, it builds from the ground up, giving a true picture of the operating environment and the needs of the people who live, work, and travel within it.

    This post is part of the Area Analysis Series, expanding on the free Strategic Framework PDF.

    Together, these posts fill out the first stage of the framework, giving you a clearer picture of why Area Analysis matters, what it involves, and how it shapes better networks.

    Haven’t got the free PDF yet? Download it here or subscribe on Substack to get it delivered straight to your inbox.

    Subscribe

  • Area Analysis Series: Building the Framework

    Area Analysis Series: Building the Framework

    Thank you if you’ve already downloaded the free Greater Buses: A Better Network Strategic Framework PDF, you’ll know that Area Analysis is one of the very first stages of network planning.

    The Area Analysis Series will expand on that foundation with a series of posts digging deeper into the Area Analysis stage.

    Not got your copy yet of the Greater Buses Strategic Framework? Subscribe for free here on Substack and you’ll get it straight to your inbox, along with every new post in the series.

    Subscribe

    Expanding the Framework

    The free PDF gives a short introduction to Area Analysis the first step in the Greater Buses Strategic Framework.

    Area Analysis is the foundation for everything that follows. By looking at the whole area with fresh eyes, planners can uncover hidden opportunities, avoid network bias, and set the stage for later recommendations.

    This new series of posts will explore:

    • What Area Analysis really means.
    • Why you must avoid skipping it.
    • The data and insights that fuel it.
    • What a good Area Analysis produces.
    • Lessons learned.

    Together, these posts will give you a fuller understanding of the first stage of network planning.

    Subscribe for free to get the PDF and every new post delivered straight to your inbox.

    Subscribe
  • Good Bus Planning – Stand Time

    Good Bus Planning – Stand Time

    Stand time rarely makes it into conversations about bus networks. It’s not flashy and doesn’t get funding headlines. But without it, reliable bus services start to fall apart.

    What is stand time?

    Stand time is the amount of time allowed for a bus to unload passengers and prepare for its next departure. It gives drivers breathing room, allows for unpredictable traffic conditions, and keeps services running to timetable.

    Depending on the type of operation, stand time could just be a couple of minutes, or up to 10–15 minutes. For intense, high-frequency services, or in times of disruption, stand times may become so short that services operate on a “load and go” to keep everything moving.

    Why stand time matters

    Done right, stand time smooths operations and supports reliability. Done wrong, it creates queues of buses circling the bus station, delayed disgruntled passengers, and safety issues on the highway or in bus stations.

    Too little stand time and buses bunch up behind each other. Too much and passengers are sitting idle, lengthening their journeys and reducing frequencies unless more space and resources are added.

    It’s a subtle balance between operational efficiency, physical space, and real passenger experience.

    Stand time in practice

    In busy operating environments such as Manchester or London, it’s impressive to watch tightly timed, high-frequency routes using double or even triple stands, usually with dedicated unloading stands or stops and barely a couple of minutes to turn around. Manchester’s 192 service is one such example.

    In Gothenburg, airport buses use longer stand times – around 10 minutes – to guarantee calm, prepared departures. As soon as one Flygbuss (literally fly bus) leaves, another takes its place. It’s orchestrated and predictable, and it works.

    The passenger perspective

    Most passengers don’t think about stand time, but they definitely feel its effects. A service with well planned and managed stand time tends to feel more reliable and punctual. And when something does goes wrong, as inevitably it will, a few extra minutes built in at the end of the route can mean the difference between recovery and failure.

    Things to consider as a planner

    Infrastructure

    Reversing stands, sawtooth bays, and on-street stops all require different timing.

    Operator behaviour

    With multiple operators, poor stand management can lead to chaos ( think of 1980s Manchester post-deregulation).

    Balance

    Too much stand time reduces efficiency; too little causes knock-on delays.

    The real art of stand time is balance.

    Enough to recover, not so much that it wastes resources. And like many things in bus planning it’s easy to overlook until it breaks.

    In a future post we’ll cover stand graphs to help plot a bus station or stand’s departures.

  • This is not just a bus stop. It’s a gateway to endless destinations

    This is not just a bus stop. It’s a gateway to endless destinations

    A simple pole and a plate. Can such humble infrastructure form the basis of an integrated network? Are multi-million pound interchanges the only way to unlock the full potential of networks?

    Away from the multi-million pound interchanges, the humble bus stop is the backbone of the bus network.

    With a simple metal pole and plate a world of opportunity opens up to the user – if the network is designed properly.

    Of course not all bus stops are capable of becoming vital nodes within an integrated public transport system. Location, lighting, environment, connections and safety all play a part. For example a lone female is unlikely to want to regularly interchange at a bus stop on a dark industrial estate with a couple of buses an hour in each direction and with no shelter.

    But what if that same bus stop gained a shelter, and with it up-to-date clear information, and even better, real-time information boards.

    Then what if that same bus stop had bright, clear lighting. Clean, well-maintained surroundings.

    Next, what if the bus stop had a bus in each direction of at least every 15 minutes (10 would be even better).

    What if the buses served the stop during most of the day so that she didn’t need to worry about the start or finish time of her shifts.

    What if the buses that greet her in each direction, were of the highest specification, with the most courteous of driving staff that customer service training can create.

    What if the buses actually go where she wants to go with minimal fuss, with seamless affordable ticketing.

    That humble bus stop, in the middle of nowhere becomes an exemplar of interchange best practice.

    It doesn’t require public control of the buses, but also equally, doesn’t require full on privatisation of the industry.

    All it needs is the will of network planners, bus operators and their staff, and local authorities to make it work.

    Basic Bus Stop Interchange Checklist

    1. Up-to-date clear information.
    2. Clear branding.
    3. Shelter and lighting.
    4. Well maintained surroundings including kerb and footpath improvements.
    5. Regular, punctual departures.
    6. Connections to useful destinations and interchanges.
    7. Fully trained driving staff.
    8. Well maintained, fully featured vehicles.
    9. Integrated and/or affordable ticketing.
    10. Real-time information.

    Building Better Networks Together

    By bringing real world experiences into planning, we can create better bus networks; networks that don’t just meet expectations but exceed them.

    So maybe next time you’re working on a new transport project, take the time to really get to know the area and passengers and truly make the difference that we all strive for.

    GB

    Greater Buses. A better network.

  • When two modes go to war

    When two modes go to war

    In a society that values free choice, should planners dictate how you travel? Whether by foot, bus, train, tram, or even the private car, should the decision be yours alone? Can transport networks be designed to offer genuine choice, or is competition between modes an inevitable battle with winners and losers?

    The British are a funny bunch. On the one hand, we’ve built some of the greatest transport systems in the world: London’s Underground, thousands of miles of railway, all moving millions of people every day. Yet, paradoxically, we remain one of the most car-dependent nations on Earth.

    The contradictions deepen when you start talking to people about their travel habits. There’s the ritualistic rail commuter, who drives to the station daily but books annual leave at the first whisper of a rail replacement service. Then there’s the savvy student, bouncing between metro and underground systems with ease, their eco-conscious, urban-chic image intact, that’s until the mere thought of boarding a bus shatters the illusion. And, of course, the hard-working backbone of society, for whom the bus is a necessity. Suggest swapping it for a train or tram, and panic immediately sets in as they wonder what a return fare might cost.

    Meanwhile, in the world of transport planning, things don’t get any less absurd. Planners, desperate to justify their billion pound projects, often convince transport authorities to withdraw local bus routes, hoping, perhaps naively, that passengers will obediently transfer onto their shiny new system.

    And so, the battle lines are drawn. Different transport modes, each with their own strengths, weaknesses, and fiercely loyal passengers. But is this truly a war? Or have we simply built a system where choice is an illusion, dictated by funding, planning priorities, and the whims of decision-makers?

    Horses for courses

    The old saying, “horses for courses” is an apt phrase for the public transport industry.

    Now, I was about to say that you wouldn’t use A for B or D for C, but I didn’t. I’ve stopped myself from making the very same mistake that planners, authorities and politicians make.

    Why did you stop yourself I hear you ask? Because I thought of a scenario where a passenger would chose counter to the official narrative.

    A man and woman regularly travelled to Manchester by rail. At the time the trains in the North West were abysmal. Overcrowding, cancellations and late running. This unrelated couple decided to abandon the train and came to the bus station to enquire about the National Express coach service. Manchester was one stop away and tickets cost just under a tenner.

    Being the helpful member of staff I suggested catching the bus to Manchester, which would save a few quid and they were more frequent.

    Now here’s where it gets interesting. They weren’t just looking for an alternative to the train, they were looking for something better. The National Express coach was advertised as 15 minutes faster than the local bus, with no stops. Even though it cost more than the bus and took longer than the train, the certainty of a seat all the way to Manchester made the decision for them.

    Their decision wasn’t based on cost or speed in isolation, it was about comfort, predictability, and control over their journey.

    Credit: National Express

    This raises an important question, do we really give people a choice in how they travel? Or do we expect them to fit into the system, rather than the system fitting around them?

    Two sides of the same coin?

    This story isn’t unique. Every day, passengers make similar decisions, weighing up speed, cost, comfort, and reliability; sometimes choosing what planners might call the “wrong” option. But is there really a “right” option to begin with?

    Public transport often feels like a battlefield, with different modes fighting for dominance. But are they truly in competition, or are they simply different sides of the same coin each fulfilling a different role in a well-balanced network?

    As startling as it maybe to some, the train, tram or tube are not necessarily the better choice when compared to the bus.

    • Trains excel at speed – no bus or coach can match a two-hour journey from Manchester to London.
    • Trams offer improved journey times and seamless integration between lines.
    • Underground and metro systems thrive on speed, frequency, and integration.

    The humble bus, by contrast, rarely competes on these criteria. Except in rare cases, it cannot match the speed or capacity of fixed-track modes. This is where planners and authorities often make a critical miscalculation. With the best of intentions, they withdraw a “competing” bus service when a new tram line is introduced, believing that doing so will encourage higher patronage on the new system. After all, funding decisions are often tied to passenger numbers, so any action that boosts figures, no matter how coercive, can seem justifiable.

    This logic isn’t new. In Germany, for many years, buses and coaches were legally restricted from competing with railways. While the UK has mostly avoided such heavy-handed policies, it hasn’t been immune. When Newcastle’s Metro system was introduced, bus services were deliberately restructured to act as feeders. But the expected interchange didn’t materialise, and over time, “normal” bus services were reluctantly reinstated.

    Rather than forcing passengers onto a particular mode, buses should be seen as a complement to other modes – offering real choice.

    • Comfort over speed.
    • Directness over journey time.
    • Destinations over interchange.

    Choice or control?

    So, when two modes go to war, is there really a winner? Or is the real battle not between bus, tram, and train, but between choice and control?

    Forcing passengers onto a particular mode doesn’t build a stronger network, it only weakens it. True success isn’t measured by whether a new tram line outperforms the bus route it replaced, but by whether the entire transport system as a whole gives people the flexibility to travel in a way that suits them.

    A well-balanced network isn’t about choosing one mode over another. It’s about true integration, value to the passenger, and, most importantly, choice.

    Because in the end, passengers don’t care about mode wars. They care about getting where they need to be, in the way that works best for them.

    Building better networks together

    By bringing real world experiences into planning, we can create better bus networks; networks that don’t just meet expectations but exceed them.

    So maybe next time you’re working on a new transport project, take the time to really get to know the area and passengers and truly make the difference that we all strive for.

  • The Holy Grail of Integration

    The Holy Grail of Integration

    Integration is hailed as the holy grail of public transport planning—but is it a myth? Passengers are often left grappling with overly complex journeys, far removed from the seamless vision planners promise.

    The creation of the passenger transport authorities in the 60s and 70s was supposed to integrate the public transport networks. The change to Integrated Transport Authorities in the 2000s again was meant to bring about the holy grail of integration – but didn’t.

    And now in the brave new world of franchising we’re being told integration between modes is going to solve all the world’s problems. What is the reality for the passenger?

    What is a journey?

    There are many interpretations of what a journey consists of. From home to work. Home to the bus stop. Bus stop to the railway station. Bus stop to another random bus stop to a bus stop kind of close to where you are going, and so on, in all the many forms and variations depending on the modes chosen or worse, forced to use.

    In my mind, and I suspect the vast majority of bus users’ minds, the journey is the complete whole from starting point to end point. Home to office. School to home. Doctors surgery to local supermarket.

    The concept is straightforward and makes sense – but it is impossible except by walking, cycling or car. You may be the lucky one who is fortunate to have a bus stop outside of the house with a fast, frequent bus to shuttle you into the town centre where your place of work is conveniently located next to the station.

    If only that could be everyone’s experience.

    Instead for many people a journey will be made up of at least three legs:

    1. Start to stop
    2. Stop to stop
    3. Stop to end.

    Or we can simplify this further as:

    • Walk, bus, walk.
    • Walk, train, walk (you must be really lucky!)
    • Walk, tram, walk (congratulations, you live somewhere with actual investment!)
    • Walk, underground/metro, walk (you’ve hit the public transport jackpot!)

    Let’s break this down further to see how integration works in practice.

    Taking the (sometimes) long but more connected road

    The foundation of integration lies in the ability to seamlessly interchange between services and modes; whether that’s bus, rail, tram, coach, or ferry.

    The benefits are clear and widely agreed upon: better access to employment and education, simpler and more direct routes, faster journey times, and more efficient use of resources.

    The diagram represents a typical integrated system, with a local bus network and a metro.

    Joe Bloggs, living at A can travel to E via connected legs. This might be Joe’s daily commute to work across town. From A he begins his journey with a walk to his nearest bus stop B. He uses the bus to connect with the nearby metro line at C, travelling a few stops down the line to D. He alights and walks the remaining stage of his journey to work E.

    This simple version of integration keeps things straightforward: fewer interchanges, shorter walking distances, and a clear route. It balances connectivity with simplicity, making it a far more appealing option for passengers.

    But why does this matter? Because complexity puts people off and they will default to the easiest mode – the car. While grand integration schemes may look impressive on paper, passengers prioritise ease, directness and speed.

    The above diagram is an extreme, complex integration scenario, but one that isn’t too far removed from the utopian ideals of transport planners.

    Let’s follow Joe again and see how he fares.

    Joe starts at home A and needs to get to F, his workplace. The most direct solution? A bus that runs along the main road, ideally stopping close to both his home and workplace. Simple, efficient, and accessible.

    But in this over-integrated network, Joe is expected to:

    1. Walk to B to catch the bus.
    2. Change to a metro line at C.
    3. Change onto another metro line at D.
    4. Alight at E and walk to his workplace.

    All this, just to reach F.

    Instead of creating a seamless journey, this approach forces unnecessary complexity and makes public transport less appealing. The time wasted in interchanges and the added mental load of navigating multiple legs often push passengers toward private car use – a far cry from the goals of integration.

    A system that forces multiple unnecessary interchanges risks driving people away from public transport entirely.

    By designing routes that minimise interchanges and prioritise direct connections to key destinations, we can achieve a better balance, one that truly serves the needs of the passenger.

    6 Tips for a successful integrated network

    The idyllic, utopian integrated vision requires enormous investment, not just in physical infrastructure like vehicles, tracks, and stations, but also in staffing, technology, real-time information, and, perhaps most crucially, the political and corporate will to make it happen.

    But there are things planners on both sides can be doing to build successful, integrated networks:

    1. Understand the passenger experience: Create passenger personas for the different areas of the network and follow their experiences to key destinations, within and outside the current and future network.
    2. Transport modes should complement each other: Transport modes should not compete, nor replace each other. Passengers may have a valid reason for their preference for a bus service over a rail service e.g. accessibility.
    3. Committed integration: If a bus service is to connect with rail, make sure it can and considers passengers travelling in both directions at different times of day. (I will cover bus/rail integration in a future edition).
    4. Integrated ticketing: Passengers must be able to purchase a ticket on the first service and use it all the way to the end of their journey. Increasing the number of payment transactions increases the interchange burden.
    5. Clear, sensible interchange points: Interchanging passengers must have the ability to interchange at clearly branded, designated, interchange points that make sense with easy to use facilities such as real-time information, maps and onward signposting. Expecting a passenger to interchange modes at a simple stop on a street out of town, increases interchange anxiety and push them away from future use.
    6. Frequency and reliability: The integrated network needs to be frequent, reliable and regular to reduce the interchange burden. Transferring from a high frequency service to an hourly or two hourly service, or vice versa, depletes the passenger’s goodwill reserve and will only dissuade them from considering public transport in the future.

    Building Better Networks Together

    By bringing real world experiences into planning, we can create bus networks that stand the test of time; networks that don’t just meet expectations but exceed them.

    So maybe next time you’re working on a new transport project, take the time to really get to know the area and passengers and truly make that generational difference that we all strive for.

  • Transport planners don’t understand buses

    Transport planners don’t understand buses

    Transport planners don’t understand buses. There, I said it. And while that statement might sting, it comes from a place of truth – and a desire to see real change. If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes I probably wouldn’t have believed it myself.

    I’m not talking about planners who occasionally ride a bus as part of a research project. Or those who hop on for inauguration day, surrounded by dignitaries and perfectly staged service runs. I mean the day-to-day reality of relying on public transport – the frustrations, the delays, the moments when you’re down to your last few quid and praying your contactless payment goes through.

    Disconnect Between Transport Planners and Real-life Buses

    Transport planners and network planners come from very different worlds. On the surface they appear to be aligned but scratch the surface and the differences begin to appear. Network planners often have a practical understanding of the industry, shaped by years of experience as drivers, inspectors, or operational managers. Many have spent a lifetime obsessing over bus routes, timetables, and vehicle types.

    Transport planners, on the other hand, are typically well-versed in theories, concepts, and academic models. They’re taught by professors and advocacy groups who, while well-meaning, often focus on idealistic visions that fail to account for the dynamic realities of running a bus network. Turning a critical economic corridor into a pedestrian paradise might look good on paper, but it doesn’t always help the people who depend on that route to get to work, and therefore aid economic regeneration.

    This isn’t meant to discredit transport planners – it’s a call to action. To truly unlock the potential of bus travel, we need everyone: planners, managers, and operators to immerse themselves in the real-world experiences of passengers.

    3 Steps to Bridge the Gap

    Here’s how we can bridge the gap between theory and operation.

    1. Understand the network from the passenger’s perspective: Move beyond theoretical models and personas.
    2. Immerse yourself in real-world journeys: Ride the buses, talk to passengers, and observe how services operate daily.
    3. Learn from the frontline: Shadow drivers, customer service staff, and operational managers to gain hands-on, real-world insights.

    Building Better Networks Together

    By bringing real world experiences into planning, we can create bus networks that stand the test of time; networks that don’t just meet expectations but exceed them. Collaboration and empathy are the keys to making it happen.

    So maybe next time you’re working on a new transport project, take the time to really get to know the area and passengers and truly make that generational difference that we all strive for.