For a student living in Endcliffe who makes two bus journeys each day, the Zoom fare increase represents an extra £147 over a 15-week semester – just shy of one week’s rent. That’s certainly a significant sum, but there is one problem with this analogy: living in Endcliffe myself, I know very few regular bus users – the service is so utterly farcical it is barely worth the 80p fare, let alone £1.50.
The first problem is reliability. At the busiest times, there are around nine buses per hour between the city and Ranmoor. That should mean the next bus is never more than 7 minutes away, but in reality, it’s common to see two or three buses following each other and then a gap of 20 to 25 minutes, or even longer once you throw inevitable delays and cancellations into the mix. This can be caused by a bus catching up with the one ahead in traffic. In well-designed systems, one driver is instructed to stop for a short time to even out the service. But this rarely seems to happen in Sheffield – in fact, some services are actually scheduled to be like this.
This problem is exacerbated by the lack of good service information. A few stops do have information screens, but the times displayed often bear no resemblance to what is actually happening. Apps can be more accurate, as long as you don’t mind having to check every bus company one-by-one. And this leads us to the crux of the problem: fragmentation. Sheffield has no single public transport network, it has several disparate ones run by different private companies.
The symptoms of this aren’t hard to see – just look at the timetable for route 120, with frequent examples of buses from competing companies within a few minutes of each other, followed by a long gap. Even the ticketing system is a confusing and disjointed mess, that would take a whole article of its own to properly explain. (An illustration of how nonsensical it gets: for journeys where there is a choice between tram and bus, trams are always more expensive, discouraging people from choosing the cleaner, more energy efficient option).
There is a public body, the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA); they are lumbered with the unenviable task of maintaining some sort of coordination between the half-dozen different transport operators in Sheffield, despite no power to set fares, timetables or quality standards. This means that, no matter what the SYMCA may wish to do to improve the service, the operators hold all the cards: they are free to operate however they like. So the first priority for public transport in Sheffield should be to end this disorganised patchwork, integrating all bus and tram services into a single network, with sensible timetables and fares, controlled by a public body that can properly be held accountable.
We haven’t even discussed how painfully slow bus journeys are. Heavy traffic is a clear culprit here, so speeding up buses will require reducing the number of cars on the road. This leads to another important conclusion: encouraging people onto public transport involves making it not only more convenient to take the bus, but also less convenient to drive. There are many ways this could be done, and designing a suitable scheme is well beyond my expertise, but it is something that should be investigated. Journeys are also slowed down by the fact that almost every passenger has to pay the driver as they board; if this could be avoided, long buses with many doors could be used, speeding up the process of getting passengers on and off and reducing time spent at stops. In this area, the best public transport systems in continental Europe should provide plenty of inspiration.
Fare increases are clearly disappointing, but as someone who is passionate about good quality public transport, I know it is important to choose my battles wisely. What is needed, first and foremost, is a single, competent network that people actually want to use. Once that’s sorted, perhaps I will join your calls for the return of the 80p fare.