Improving the service provided by Britain’s public transport networks needs to be central to any plan for a Low Traffic Future. So too is the promotion of various forms of shared and community transport, including car–clubs, ride-sharing schemes, community transport services and public cycle hire schemes.

Yet at present, public transport in Britain is often expensive, unreliable and poorly co-ordinated, mainly due to a combination of underfunding, fragmentation and organisational failures. It does not help that successive governments have consistently held down or (more recently) cut fuel duty each year since 2010, while allowing public transport fares to rise. The New Economics Foundation reported in 2023 that bus fares had risen by 76% and rail fares by 50% since the fuel duty freezes began, whereas petrol costs were up by just 23%. Greener Vision showed in 2020 that, by then, the policy had increased motor traffic by 5%, resulting in an extra 5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions and 15,000 tonnes of extra NOx emissions, 250m fewer bus journeys and 75m fewer rail journeys, compared with what would otherwise have happened. The Social Market Foundation has since shown that this policy has cost the Exchequer £100bn. 

Volunteer-run community transport services often fill vital gaps in the conventional public transport network, and can be vital particularly for older and/or disabled people to maintain their independence, access services and participate in their communities. However they are often neglected in planning local transport services.

So far in the UK, public cycle-hire is mostly still limited to a few larger towns and cities (and often just to their central areas), while car-clubs and ride-sharing are still seen as niche activities rather than as normal options. 

Yet if we want a Low Traffic Future with all its benefits for tackling congestion, pollution and the climate emergency, we need to support the revival of public, shared and community transport services as easy, convenient, inexpensive and normal ways to get around. 

A crucial step is to strengthen public control of and accountability for public transport networks and services. This in turn will make it easier to implement solutions such as:

  • Expanding and increasing the capacity of the rail and metro networks (n.b the term ‘metro’ encompasses underground, light rail and tram networks), building new or upgraded stations, and investing in critical power and signalling systems, so that cheaper, more frequent, better-connected, more reliable and greener rail services can serve more parts of the country.
  • Similarly, supporting more frequent and reliable bus and coach services, e.g. by improving bus priority in urban areas and by boosting the coverage and frequency of rural services. Rural buses are a lifeline for rural communities: without them, people who are unable to drive (including young and older people, people with some disabilities and those who simply cannot afford to run a car) face social and economic isolation, unable to reach schools, colleges or work-places other than by relying on lifts and taxis.
  • Improving public transport links to and within National Parks and other protected landscapes. People will feel much more inclined to leave the car at home when going on weekend breaks or holidays if they feel they can get around without a car when they get there.
  • Supporting community transport services – many of them volunteer-run – such as school or hospital transport schemes, dial-a-ride, motability and similar services, including those aimed primarily at older and/or disabled people.
  • Increasing usage of the full range of  shared transport options, e.g. car clubs in residential areas or ride-sharing for people travelling the same workplaces or business parks.
  • Supporting the growth of public cycle hire schemes, as well as targeted opportunities for people to try cargo-bikes and non-standard pedal cycles, including those with electric assistance.

Promoting better integration of all of the above, including coordinated timetabling and ticketing (e.g. through online  ‘mobility as a service’ (MaaS) platforms), ‘mobility hubs’ and active travel.

Our rail network can provide rapid, environmentally sustainable connectivity, particularly between Britain’s main cities. However, passengers can also  suffer from:

  • High fares, complicated fare structures and inflexible season ticket rules which do not reflect that, for many people, the regular commute is now a thing of the past.
  • Overcrowding, particularly at peak times – meaning that the passengers paying the highest fares often get the worst service.
  • Poorly integrated ticketing and timetabling, including with buses and other local services.
  • Old, uncomfortable and dirty trains on non-electric lines.
  • Cancellations and delays – often due to failures of the rail infrastructure itself (e.g. maintenance, signalling or power failures).
  • Poor customer service, including a lack of staff at stations and poor information when things go wrong.
  • A lack of provision for cycle users and disabled people – although wheelchair spaces on trains are now standard, many stations lack step-free access and tactile paving, and it can be hard to access mobility support, especially if problems arise (e.g. if a connecting train is delayed). Pedestrian and cycle access to stations is often poor, while cycle parking and cycle spaces on trains are often inadequate and/or poorly designed.

Many of these problems (e.g. high fares, overcrowding and, in the case of underground networks, poor disabled access) also affect our metro networks. 

It is hoped that the Government’s rail reforms (i.e. the ability to bring rail services under national public control, and the proposed setting up of Great British Railways under the proposed Railways Bill) will address at least some of these problems. Meanwhile local authorities can play a role by:

  • Supporting the opening of new or revived rail lines and stations;
  • Supporting access and accessibility improvements to and within stations (e.g. for walking, cycling and for disabled people, whatever their mode of transport);
  • Promoting integration with other public and shared transport modes, e.g. by creating mobility hubs, improving the coordination of timetables and ticketing arrangements, and integrating rail travel with local bike-share schemes.

Urban ‘metro’ systems can carry significant numbers of passengers at peak times, on routes which are fixed and therefore easy to visualise and remember. Light rail systems can make use of suburban rail lines, increasing the  frequency of services but connecting them to routes which run on-street through the hearts of the cities they serve. The permanence of the investment in a tram system can lend prestige to a city, while the arrangement of tracks and platforms is very space-efficient and offers excellent disabled access. For more, see this report from the Urban Transport Group.

However, trams and light rail systems have high installation costs, can be disruptive when they fail, their routes cannot be varied or extended easily and, if not designed carefully, the tram-rails themselves can create safety hazards for cycle users. There are debates about whether their service quality can be achieved more cost-effectively, safely and flexibly by opting for some form of guided bus system, including those where the bus is guided by white lines or magnetic wiring rather than by a separate kerb.

Further information: 

Unofficial guidance: The Rail Delivery Group (RDG, representing the rail industry)) has a toolkit and other publications to support the development of Station Travel Plans, to facilitate access to and from stations primarily by non-car means. The Government-backed Cycle Rail Working Group has published a Cycle Rail Toolkit.

Buses are an essential lifeline for many rural communities, especially for people who cannot or do not drive, whether because they are too young, have a disability or simply cannot afford to run a car. Yet many people have lost bus services which they depended on to reach schools or colleges, employment or training, and other key facilities. Many villages have a bus service that runs less than once a day (i.e. on certain days of the week only), or no bus service at all. CPRE, the countryside charity, has published research on ‘transport deserts’, finding that 56% of small rural towns now fit their definition of a ‘transport desert’ or are at risk of doing so.

The introduction of a cap on single bus fares – initially at £2, more recently increased to £3 – has contributed to a partial recovery. However the Campaign for Better Transport’s report Better buses: reforming bus funding documents the complexity of current bus funding arrangements and huge disparities in the resulting funding allocations to different local authorities – from £236 per person in Portsmouth to below £4 per person in Swindon. It calls for all local transport authorities to have a single long-term bus funding pot, and a bus service guarantee to ensure that all areas at least meet some minimum service standards, with no areas left without bus services. 

New regulations have already given all local authorities the powers to franchise bus services in their areas (this power was previously only available to Transport for London and combined authorities) The Government’s Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, currently before Parliament, contains further measures to improve services, including reversing the current ban on local authorities setting up new municipal bus companies, as well as tackling anti-social behaviour on buses, improving bus stops and bus information. A separate Bus Services Bill – a Private Member’s Bill – seeks to go further in setting minimum service standards for key destinations.

The success of bus franchising in Greater London (which now accounts for 51% of bus passenger journeys in England) and Greater Manchester, and municipal bus companies in Reading and Nottingham, highlights some key advantages of these options, as compared with existing partnership or enhanced partnership arrangements. Local authorities should look to maximise these benefits, by:

  • Improving the integration of timetables and ticketing (i.e. eliminating the need for passengers to have separate tickets for different transport operators’ services);
  • Tackling the congestion caused by ‘over-busing’ (i.e. excessive bus numbers, due to inefficient competition on high-demand routes, e.g. the Oxford Road corridor in Manchester);
  • Allowing commercially unviable but socially necessary services to be cross-subsidised by other more profitable routes;
  • Improving public accountability – this will generally boost public transport services and service quality, by giving the public more of a say in what improvements are most needed.

CPRE, the countryside charity, has called for England to follow the Swiss model of providing a minimum of an hourly bus service from 6am till midnight, for every village above a certain population size (e.g. 300 inhabitants in the Zurich and Bern regions). CPRE estimates that this would cost £2.7bn annually but would provide huge benefits in terms of boosting education, training and employment opportunities, saving parents time from fulfilling escort duties or the costs of hiring taxis, while also reducing the congestion, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions associated with car travel.

There is also significant potential to improve the quality of coach services, by creating coachway interchanges at edge-of-town sites (typically next to the motorway network), where intercity coaches can connect with rapid public transport (preferably rail-based) connections into city centres.

Further information:

Official guidance: The Government has issued guidance on Bus Service Improvement Plans and on bus franchising. The latter exists in two versions: one from March 2024 (which should be used by local authorities which gave notice of intent to develop a franchising assessment prior to 17 December 2024, and an updated version for LAs who issued a notice of intent after that date).

Unofficial guidance: The case for bus franchising and how to deliver it are outlined by campaign group We Own It, and in reports from the Centre for Cities, Transport for Quality of Life and a joint report by the Local Government Association (LGA) and Urban Transport Group (UTG). See also the countryside charity CPRE’s Every Village Every Hour report, and Campaign for Better Transport’s report Funding local bus services in England.

Community transport schemes encompass a wide range of services, run on a not-for-profit basis, with many of them provided by volunteers. They can include school or hospital transport, and dial-a-ride, motability and similar services aimed particularly at meeting the needs of older and/or disabled people. They are often vital to enable people to stay independent, participate in their local communities or access public services, education or employment. Most are demand-responsive but some operate on fixed routes, filling in gaps in conventional public transport services. For more, see the Community Transport Association’s website.

As well as supporting these services, local authorities need to play a role in improving the coordination of conventional public transport, school transport and community transport services. This is not straightforward, as school buses and community transport services are often supported by a separate local authority department from that which supports conventional public transport. 

Further information: 

Unofficial guidance: The Community Transport Association (CTA-UK) produces a range of resources on funding, setting-up, funding and managing community transport schemes.

Car clubs, peer-to-peer car sharing and ride sharing schemes are all ways in which people can have use of a car when required, without needing to own one.

Traditional car sharing schemes are similar to straightforward car rental, though the cars are usually available from parking bays in residential areas rather than from a car rental depot. Still, the car normally needs to be returned ‘back to base’, i.e. to the place where it was picked up.

Variants of this model are emerging, with larger car club operators now able to offer one-way journeys, though so far this is more common in Germany than the UK. Another option is peer-to-peer lending, where individuals offer to rent out their cars to other individuals, rather like an AirBnB for cars.

Ride-sharing is another form of peer-to-peer collaboration, but involves individuals giving lifts to other individuals, brokered by sites such as Getaround, Hiyacar, Karshare and Turo. It differs from ride-hailing apps like Uber, in that the drivers are not seeking to make a living from providing this service, they are simply offering a lift while making a journey for which they would be driving anyway. Another ride-sharing company, Liftshare, also sets up ride-sharing schemes based on workplaces or business parks, e.g. at engineering firm Arup’s business campus in the West Midlands.

Further information:

Unofficial guidance: Shared transport charity CoMoUK’s Community Carshare Handbook provides advice on setting up car sharing clubs. CoMoUK also provides a listing of accredited car club operators, peer-to-peer car sharing platforms and local or regional car clubs.

Cycle hire (or ‘bike-share’) can take the following distinct forms:

  • Cycle hire based on designated hire and drop-off locations, in which cycles can be unlocked by registering payment either at docking stations or from marked areas (where users can park their bike without additional charge or penalty at the end of a ride).
  • Free-floating (or ‘dockless’) cycle hire, where the bike-share operator allows cycles to be picked up and dropped off at any location within their operating zone.
  • Hub-based cycle hire, where bikes are hired and returned to staffed locations, e.g. at train stations or at recreational destinations (e.g. in or near national parks). Cycles usually have to be returned to the location where they were collected, though some operators have networks of hire locations, enabling cycles to be hired at one location and dropped off at another (similar to larger car-hire schemes).
  • Workplace-based pool bikes.
  • Cycle loan schemes, often run by social enterprises and/or based at community locations, where, cycles can be loaned out on a ‘try before you buy’ basis.

The charity CoMoUK shows the bike-share schemes and operators active in the UK.

For all of these options, the pedal cycles themselves can either be conventional or electrically-assisted cycles, and may include non-standard cycles that can be used as mobility aids (e.g. tricycles, regular tandems, side-by-side tandems or hand-cycles).

International evidence highlights the potential for bike-share schemes to act as catalysts for creating a local cycling culture, with successful schemes attracting 4 to 8 rides per bike per day. Among the positive findings in a CoMoUK survey, nearly half of UK bike-share users were taking up cycling after a period of not doing so, including 3% who had never cycled before.

However the arrival in the UK, and equally sudden departure, of a wave of venture capital-backed dockless cycle hire operators in 2017-18 showed  that viable bike-share schemes need at least some initial public capital investment to get established, while additional revenue support may be needed to keep them running, particularly in more deprived areas. This investment is likely to be well justified though, given the evidence of bike-share’s wide-ranging benefits. 

Further information:

Unofficial guidance: CoMoUK provides various advice notes for councils and others on bike-share schemes, as well as a map and listing of existing bike-share schemes and operators that are active in the UK.

Rail operators and transport authorities (e.g. combined metropolitan authorities, county and most city councils) need to work more closely together to improve the coordination of rail and bus timetables, though transport authorities also need greater powers to achieve this where voluntary agreements cannot be reached. It is hoped that the Government’s planned restructuring of Britain’s railways could open up opportunities for improvements.

Similarly, there is a need to simplify and integrate ticketing and payment schemes for public and shared transport. The Urban Transport Group (UTG) and EU have produced evidence showing that integrated ticketing can substantially increase public transport patronage, as well as increasing revenues, improving passenger satisfaction, speeding up boarding times, reducing fraud and operational costs and, crucially, reducing car use. The West of England Combined Authority is actively seeking to improve integrated ticketing in and around Bristol, Bath and the surrounding region.

One opportunity to integrate payment is the development of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) platforms. MaaS is effectively a digital platform which enables users to see the full range of options for the journey they wish to make, and then make a single on-demand payment for whatever option they choose. This can include public or shared transport (including cycle hire) as well as taxis and ride-hailing options. It can help users find sustainable transport options in real time. Trials (e.g. in the West Midlands and Greater Manchester) have shown that MaaS is popular but that better coordination and (probably) regulation is needed to maximise its effectiveness.

Mobility hubs are locations where sustainable and/or shared transport services can be accessed in close physical proximity, e.g. where people can interchange between public transport (including park and ride), shared cars, cycle parking and bike-share services – see evidence of their benefits.

Finally, it is vital to improve the integration of public transport services with active travel (i.e. walking, wheeling or cycling). This involves not only providing step-free pedestrian and cycle access to, from and within stations, but also providing better facilities and customer service for those wishing to use public transport in combination with cycling and/or the use of a mobility aid (bearing in mind that, for some disabled cycle users, a pedal cycle is a mobility aid). Hence there is a need to improve cycle parking and hire facilities at stations,  to provide well-designed cycle and wheelchair spaces on trains and other public transport vehicles, to put in place user-friendly ticketing and cycle reservation systems, and to provide useful practical information (e.g. on step-free access or where to board a train with a pedal cycle). 

 Further information:

Official guidance: DfT has issued a Code of Practice for Mobility as a Service platforms.

Unofficial guidance: the Urban Mobility Partnership publishes a  Practical guide to Mobility as a Service from, and CoMoUK’s Mobility hubs guidance. The Rail Delivery Group  provides guidance on Station Travel Plans (which seek to improve the integration of rail and other services) and a Cycle-Rail Toolkit.

"If we want a Low Traffic Future with all its benefits for tackling congestion, pollution and the climate emergency, we need to support the revival of public and shared transport as easy, convenient, inexpensive and normal ways to get around."

"If we want a Low Traffic Future with all its benefits for tackling congestion, pollution and the climate emergency, we need to support the revival of public and shared transport as easy, convenient, inexpensive and normal ways to get around."

Improving the service provided by Britain’s public transport networks needs to be central to any plan for a Low Traffic Future. So too is the promotion of various forms of shared and community transport, including car–clubs, ride-sharing schemes, community transport services and public cycle hire schemes.

Yet at present, public transport in Britain is often expensive, unreliable and poorly co-ordinated, mainly due to a combination of underfunding, fragmentation and organisational failures. It does not help that successive governments have consistently held down or (more recently) cut fuel duty each year since 2010, while allowing public transport fares to rise. The New Economics Foundation reported in 2023 that bus fares had risen by 76% and rail fares by 50% since the fuel duty freezes began, whereas petrol costs were up by just 23%. Greener Vision showed in 2020 that, by then, the policy had increased motor traffic by 5%, resulting in an extra 5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions and 15,000 tonnes of extra NOx emissions, 250m fewer bus journeys and 75m fewer rail journeys, compared with what would otherwise have happened. The Social Market Foundation has since shown that this policy has cost the Exchequer £100bn. 

Volunteer-run community transport services often fill vital gaps in the conventional public transport network, and can be vital particularly for older and/or disabled people to maintain their independence, access services and participate in their communities. However they are often neglected in planning local transport services.

So far in the UK, public cycle-hire is mostly still limited to a few larger towns and cities (and often just to their central areas), while car-clubs and ride-sharing are still seen as niche activities rather than as normal options. 

Yet if we want a Low Traffic Future with all its benefits for tackling congestion, pollution and the climate emergency, we need to support the revival of public, shared and community transport services as easy, convenient, inexpensive and normal ways to get around. 

A crucial step is to strengthen public control of and accountability for public transport networks and services. This in turn will make it easier to implement solutions such as:

  • Expanding and increasing the capacity of the rail and metro networks (n.b the term ‘metro’ encompasses underground, light rail and tram networks), building new or upgraded stations, and investing in critical power and signalling systems, so that cheaper, more frequent, better-connected, more reliable and greener rail services can serve more parts of the country.
  • Similarly, supporting more frequent and reliable bus and coach services, e.g. by improving bus priority in urban areas and by boosting the coverage and frequency of rural services. Rural buses are a lifeline for rural communities: without them, people who are unable to drive (including young and older people, people with some disabilities and those who simply cannot afford to run a car) face social and economic isolation, unable to reach schools, colleges or work-places other than by relying on lifts and taxis.
  • Improving public transport links to and within National Parks and other protected landscapes. People will feel much more inclined to leave the car at home when going on weekend breaks or holidays if they feel they can get around without a car when they get there.
  • Supporting community transport services – many of them volunteer-run – such as school or hospital transport schemes, dial-a-ride, motability and similar services, including those aimed primarily at older and/or disabled people.
  • Increasing usage of the full range of  shared transport options, e.g. car clubs in residential areas or ride-sharing for people travelling the same workplaces or business parks.
  • Supporting the growth of public cycle hire schemes, as well as targeted opportunities for people to try cargo-bikes and non-standard pedal cycles, including those with electric assistance.

Promoting better integration of all of the above, including coordinated timetabling and ticketing (e.g. through online  ‘mobility as a service’ (MaaS) platforms), ‘mobility hubs’ and active travel.

Our rail network can provide rapid, environmentally sustainable connectivity, particularly between Britain’s main cities. However, passengers can also  suffer from:

  • High fares, complicated fare structures and inflexible season ticket rules which do not reflect that, for many people, the regular commute is now a thing of the past.
  • Overcrowding, particularly at peak times – meaning that the passengers paying the highest fares often get the worst service.
  • Poorly integrated ticketing and timetabling, including with buses and other local services.
  • Old, uncomfortable and dirty trains on non-electric lines.
  • Cancellations and delays – often due to failures of the rail infrastructure itself (e.g. maintenance, signalling or power failures).
  • Poor customer service, including a lack of staff at stations and poor information when things go wrong.
  • A lack of provision for cycle users and disabled people – although wheelchair spaces on trains are now standard, many stations lack step-free access and tactile paving, and it can be hard to access mobility support, especially if problems arise (e.g. if a connecting train is delayed). Pedestrian and cycle access to stations is often poor, while cycle parking and cycle spaces on trains are often inadequate and/or poorly designed.

Many of these problems (e.g. high fares, overcrowding and, in the case of underground networks, poor disabled access) also affect our metro networks. 

It is hoped that the Government’s rail reforms (i.e. the ability to bring rail services under national public control, and the proposed setting up of Great British Railways under the proposed Railways Bill) will address at least some of these problems. Meanwhile local authorities can play a role by:

  • Supporting the opening of new or revived rail lines and stations;
  • Supporting access and accessibility improvements to and within stations (e.g. for walking, cycling and for disabled people, whatever their mode of transport);
  • Promoting integration with other public and shared transport modes, e.g. by creating mobility hubs, improving the coordination of timetables and ticketing arrangements, and integrating rail travel with local bike-share schemes.

Urban ‘metro’ systems can carry significant numbers of passengers at peak times, on routes which are fixed and therefore easy to visualise and remember. Light rail systems can make use of suburban rail lines, increasing the  frequency of services but connecting them to routes which run on-street through the hearts of the cities they serve. The permanence of the investment in a tram system can lend prestige to a city, while the arrangement of tracks and platforms is very space-efficient and offers excellent disabled access. For more, see this report from the Urban Transport Group.

However, trams and light rail systems have high installation costs, can be disruptive when they fail, their routes cannot be varied or extended easily and, if not designed carefully, the tram-rails themselves can create safety hazards for cycle users. There are debates about whether their service quality can be achieved more cost-effectively, safely and flexibly by opting for some form of guided bus system, including those where the bus is guided by white lines or magnetic wiring rather than by a separate kerb.

Further information: 

Unofficial guidance: The Rail Delivery Group (RDG, representing the rail industry)) has a toolkit and other publications to support the development of Station Travel Plans, to facilitate access to and from stations primarily by non-car means. The Government-backed Cycle Rail Working Group has published a Cycle Rail Toolkit.

Buses are an essential lifeline for many rural communities, especially for people who cannot or do not drive, whether because they are too young, have a disability or simply cannot afford to run a car. Yet many people have lost bus services which they depended on to reach schools or colleges, employment or training, and other key facilities. Many villages have a bus service that runs less than once a day (i.e. on certain days of the week only), or no bus service at all. CPRE, the countryside charity, has published research on ‘transport deserts’, finding that 56% of small rural towns now fit their definition of a ‘transport desert’ or are at risk of doing so.

The introduction of a cap on single bus fares – initially at £2, more recently increased to £3 – has contributed to a partial recovery. However the Campaign for Better Transport’s report Better buses: reforming bus funding documents the complexity of current bus funding arrangements and huge disparities in the resulting funding allocations to different local authorities – from £236 per person in Portsmouth to below £4 per person in Swindon. It calls for all local transport authorities to have a single long-term bus funding pot, and a bus service guarantee to ensure that all areas at least meet some minimum service standards, with no areas left without bus services. 

New regulations have already given all local authorities the powers to franchise bus services in their areas (this power was previously only available to Transport for London and combined authorities) The Government’s Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, currently before Parliament, contains further measures to improve services, including reversing the current ban on local authorities setting up new municipal bus companies, as well as tackling anti-social behaviour on buses, improving bus stops and bus information. A separate Bus Services Bill – a Private Member’s Bill – seeks to go further in setting minimum service standards for key destinations.

The success of bus franchising in Greater London (which now accounts for 51% of bus passenger journeys in England) and Greater Manchester, and municipal bus companies in Reading and Nottingham, highlights some key advantages of these options, as compared with existing partnership or enhanced partnership arrangements. Local authorities should look to maximise these benefits, by:

  • Improving the integration of timetables and ticketing (i.e. eliminating the need for passengers to have separate tickets for different transport operators’ services);
  • Tackling the congestion caused by ‘over-busing’ (i.e. excessive bus numbers, due to inefficient competition on high-demand routes, e.g. the Oxford Road corridor in Manchester);
  • Allowing commercially unviable but socially necessary services to be cross-subsidised by other more profitable routes;
  • Improving public accountability – this will generally boost public transport services and service quality, by giving the public more of a say in what improvements are most needed.

CPRE, the countryside charity, has called for England to follow the Swiss model of providing a minimum of an hourly bus service from 6am till midnight, for every village above a certain population size (e.g. 300 inhabitants in the Zurich and Bern regions). CPRE estimates that this would cost £2.7bn annually but would provide huge benefits in terms of boosting education, training and employment opportunities, saving parents time from fulfilling escort duties or the costs of hiring taxis, while also reducing the congestion, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions associated with car travel.

There is also significant potential to improve the quality of coach services, by creating coachway interchanges at edge-of-town sites (typically next to the motorway network), where intercity coaches can connect with rapid public transport (preferably rail-based) connections into city centres.

Further information:

Official guidance: The Government has issued guidance on Bus Service Improvement Plans and on bus franchising. The latter exists in two versions: one from March 2024 (which should be used by local authorities which gave notice of intent to develop a franchising assessment prior to 17 December 2024, and an updated version for LAs who issued a notice of intent after that date).

Unofficial guidance: The case for bus franchising and how to deliver it are outlined by campaign group We Own It, and in reports from the Centre for Cities, Transport for Quality of Life and a joint report by the Local Government Association (LGA) and Urban Transport Group (UTG). See also the countryside charity CPRE’s Every Village Every Hour report, and Campaign for Better Transport’s report Funding local bus services in England.

Community transport schemes encompass a wide range of services, run on a not-for-profit basis, with many of them provided by volunteers. They can include school or hospital transport, and dial-a-ride, motability and similar services aimed particularly at meeting the needs of older and/or disabled people. They are often vital to enable people to stay independent, participate in their local communities or access public services, education or employment. Most are demand-responsive but some operate on fixed routes, filling in gaps in conventional public transport services. For more, see the Community Transport Association’s website.

As well as supporting these services, local authorities need to play a role in improving the coordination of conventional public transport, school transport and community transport services. This is not straightforward, as school buses and community transport services are often supported by a separate local authority department from that which supports conventional public transport. 

Further information: 

Unofficial guidance: The Community Transport Association (CTA-UK) produces a range of resources on funding, setting-up, funding and managing community transport schemes.

Car clubs, peer-to-peer car sharing and ride sharing schemes are all ways in which people can have use of a car when required, without needing to own one.

Traditional car sharing schemes are similar to straightforward car rental, though the cars are usually available from parking bays in residential areas rather than from a car rental depot. Still, the car normally needs to be returned ‘back to base’, i.e. to the place where it was picked up.

Variants of this model are emerging, with larger car club operators now able to offer one-way journeys, though so far this is more common in Germany than the UK. Another option is peer-to-peer lending, where individuals offer to rent out their cars to other individuals, rather like an AirBnB for cars.

Ride-sharing is another form of peer-to-peer collaboration, but involves individuals giving lifts to other individuals, brokered by sites such as Getaround, Hiyacar, Karshare and Turo. It differs from ride-hailing apps like Uber, in that the drivers are not seeking to make a living from providing this service, they are simply offering a lift while making a journey for which they would be driving anyway. Another ride-sharing company, Liftshare, also sets up ride-sharing schemes based on workplaces or business parks, e.g. at engineering firm Arup’s business campus in the West Midlands.

Further information:

Unofficial guidance: Shared transport charity CoMoUK’s Community Carshare Handbook provides advice on setting up car sharing clubs. CoMoUK also provides a listing of accredited car club operators, peer-to-peer car sharing platforms and local or regional car clubs.

Cycle hire (or ‘bike-share’) can take the following distinct forms:

  • Cycle hire based on designated hire and drop-off locations, in which cycles can be unlocked by registering payment either at docking stations or from marked areas (where users can park their bike without additional charge or penalty at the end of a ride).
  • Free-floating (or ‘dockless’) cycle hire, where the bike-share operator allows cycles to be picked up and dropped off at any location within their operating zone.
  • Hub-based cycle hire, where bikes are hired and returned to staffed locations, e.g. at train stations or at recreational destinations (e.g. in or near national parks). Cycles usually have to be returned to the location where they were collected, though some operators have networks of hire locations, enabling cycles to be hired at one location and dropped off at another (similar to larger car-hire schemes).
  • Workplace-based pool bikes.
  • Cycle loan schemes, often run by social enterprises and/or based at community locations, where, cycles can be loaned out on a ‘try before you buy’ basis.

The charity CoMoUK shows the bike-share schemes and operators active in the UK.

For all of these options, the pedal cycles themselves can either be conventional or electrically-assisted cycles, and may include non-standard cycles that can be used as mobility aids (e.g. tricycles, regular tandems, side-by-side tandems or hand-cycles).

International evidence highlights the potential for bike-share schemes to act as catalysts for creating a local cycling culture, with successful schemes attracting 4 to 8 rides per bike per day. Among the positive findings in a CoMoUK survey, nearly half of UK bike-share users were taking up cycling after a period of not doing so, including 3% who had never cycled before.

However the arrival in the UK, and equally sudden departure, of a wave of venture capital-backed dockless cycle hire operators in 2017-18 showed  that viable bike-share schemes need at least some initial public capital investment to get established, while additional revenue support may be needed to keep them running, particularly in more deprived areas. This investment is likely to be well justified though, given the evidence of bike-share’s wide-ranging benefits. 

Further information:

Unofficial guidance: CoMoUK provides various advice notes for councils and others on bike-share schemes, as well as a map and listing of existing bike-share schemes and operators that are active in the UK.

Rail operators and transport authorities (e.g. combined metropolitan authorities, county and most city councils) need to work more closely together to improve the coordination of rail and bus timetables, though transport authorities also need greater powers to achieve this where voluntary agreements cannot be reached. It is hoped that the Government’s planned restructuring of Britain’s railways could open up opportunities for improvements.

Similarly, there is a need to simplify and integrate ticketing and payment schemes for public and shared transport. The Urban Transport Group (UTG) and EU have produced evidence showing that integrated ticketing can substantially increase public transport patronage, as well as increasing revenues, improving passenger satisfaction, speeding up boarding times, reducing fraud and operational costs and, crucially, reducing car use. The West of England Combined Authority is actively seeking to improve integrated ticketing in and around Bristol, Bath and the surrounding region.

One opportunity to integrate payment is the development of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) platforms. MaaS is effectively a digital platform which enables users to see the full range of options for the journey they wish to make, and then make a single on-demand payment for whatever option they choose. This can include public or shared transport (including cycle hire) as well as taxis and ride-hailing options. It can help users find sustainable transport options in real time. Trials (e.g. in the West Midlands and Greater Manchester) have shown that MaaS is popular but that better coordination and (probably) regulation is needed to maximise its effectiveness.

Mobility hubs are locations where sustainable and/or shared transport services can be accessed in close physical proximity, e.g. where people can interchange between public transport (including park and ride), shared cars, cycle parking and bike-share services – see evidence of their benefits.

Finally, it is vital to improve the integration of public transport services with active travel (i.e. walking, wheeling or cycling). This involves not only providing step-free pedestrian and cycle access to, from and within stations, but also providing better facilities and customer service for those wishing to use public transport in combination with cycling and/or the use of a mobility aid (bearing in mind that, for some disabled cycle users, a pedal cycle is a mobility aid). Hence there is a need to improve cycle parking and hire facilities at stations,  to provide well-designed cycle and wheelchair spaces on trains and other public transport vehicles, to put in place user-friendly ticketing and cycle reservation systems, and to provide useful practical information (e.g. on step-free access or where to board a train with a pedal cycle). 

 Further information:

Official guidance: DfT has issued a Code of Practice for Mobility as a Service platforms.

Unofficial guidance: the Urban Mobility Partnership publishes a  Practical guide to Mobility as a Service from, and CoMoUK’s Mobility hubs guidance. The Rail Delivery Group  provides guidance on Station Travel Plans (which seek to improve the integration of rail and other services) and a Cycle-Rail Toolkit.

Related solutions

View all solutions