Public Transport

As discussed in 'The Movement Challenge', the reputation of public transport in this country is a mixed picture. The Flemish bus and tram operator De Lijn came under particular criticism for its poor cost-coverage and a network that does not cover the needs of the commuter.  Also, there is dispute about the numbers of passengers being moved by public transport. 

Indeed, the statistics are not consistent.  According to Eurostat (the official stats collated by the European Commission), Belgium’s public transport services are pretty successful, achieving in 2007 a 20% share of total passenger kilometres (with buses taking the lion’s share—13.3%).  That is significantly more than in The Netherlands.  But according the Federal Planning Bureau’s reference scenario to 2030 (which informs government policy), public transport only managed a 12% share of the total passenger kilometres in 2005 (with rail and bus/tram/metro each taking a 6% share)—which places us more in the range of The Netherlands. Something is clearly amiss with the statistics.

Looking ahead, if public transport wants to increase its market share of the passenger kilometres then some serious action will need to be taken. According to the Planning Bureau’s forecast ‘business as usual’ forecast to 2030, the market share of public transport versus the passenger car will not budge, although rail will be taking share from bus/tram/metro (since buses and trams will be hampered by road congestion).  The question can obviously be asked whether it is necessary for public transport to increase its market share, or in other words, whether modal shift is really necessary.  Indeed, some stakeholders do argue that we are throwing too much tax payers’ money at public transport services.  Especially the Flemish concept of ‘basic mobility’ comes under fire in this regard.  Under Flemish law, every citizen must have access to public transport at least 500 meters from his or her home.  De Lijn, being a publically subsidised entity, duly designed its network to comply with that legislation—which ended up being a network that did not meet the needs of companies.  It also led to somewhat bizarre situations where the state pays for people’s taxi, or where a dedicated ‘bell bus’ is dispatched to collect people on-demand. This while you can’t catch a bus to work.  The criticism doesn’t stop there.  Since buses are increasingly caught in road congestion, dedicated lanes have been demarcated on major axes, but in the process reduced road capacity for passenger cars and lorries.  

Whatever one’s standpoint on these matters, it has made it increasingly difficult to argue that public transport is more ‘sustainable.’  On the contrary, the detractors argue, by offering dirt cheap to free services in outlying areas of the country, De Lijn has simply created more mobility and possible taken market share from the one truly sustainable mode, the bicycle.  Obviously this is a gross over-simplification of the situation.  De Lijn does ferry plenty of commuters and does have systems to ensure that it does not keep running ‘unsustainable’ routes.  Nevertheless, the debacle does seem symptomatic of a strategic error (and blame the policy makers, not De Lijn).   Because looking toward the future, the case for public transport is rock solid.  It just so happens that the most urgent justifications for public transport do not seem to be exploited very effectively by De Lijn.   

There are at least three reasons why public transport needs a breakthrough.  One, as the Planning Bureau concluded in its ‘business as usual’ scenario, road traffic will become unmanageable. In other words, we face immobility on the roads. Thus, we best arrange alternatives, especially on the routes that are under most pressure, i.e. the commuter routes.  Two, under the ‘business as usual’ scenario CO2 emissions will keep growing while they should be declining.  This is important since we are tied into EU-level commitments—failure will cost us dearly in carbon off-setting payments (if not in changing climate, rising sea levels, etc.).  Thus, we best introduce cleaner alternatives (i.e. rail or tram) that compete head-on with the car.  Three, cars are being pushed out of cities.  This is an international trend that is vastly improving quality of life in the cities, witness Ghent, Bruges and Leuven. Brussels and Antwerp are tougher nuts to crack, but are nevertheless next in line.  While the media has put its spotlight on the controversial Oosterweel link (with its Lange Wapper bridge) in Antwerp, the Antwerp plan also includes a number of key measures to reorient the inner city toward public transport. Finally, a fourth point could be made: if public transport does manage to up its game then the scale advantages should go some way in addressing the cost-benefit issue.  

As it happens, the public transport operators are playing into these trends, some faster than others.  The national rail operator (NMBS/SNCF), for example, fits perfectly into this picture: the vast majority of its passengers are commuters; its carbon footprint is much lower than the car (and has potential for further reduction); and it serves the major cities very well.  Its major challenge is that it can barely keep up with demand.  The company has been investing as rapidly as it can in double-decker trains and advanced planning systems to enable more frequent trains.  The key bottleneck, however, is the rail infrastructure.  Originally designed as a star with Brussels as the central hub, the rail network is hampered by a bottleneck right in the centre of Brussels, the North-South link that connects the three largest stations in central Brussels.  The main breakthrough for the NMBS/SNCF will be the new Rapid Transit Rail system (GEN/RER) network being built to improve the commuter connections to Brussels.  Due for completion by 2015-2016, the GEN/RER project will increase the frequency of trains on certain lines, will introduce several new lines, and will increase the number of stations and stops.