How can bus and coach companies build their business case around sustainability?

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "How can bus and coach companies build their business case around sustainability?"

Calvin Ball
7 years ago
Views:

1 Stakeholder Meeting Busworld Kortrijk - 18/10/13 How can bus and coach companies build their business case around sustainability? Stakeholders positions on 9 statements developed during a panel discussion

2 Statement 1 The business case doesn t work: investing in sustainable buses is to expensive. Alternative technologies/fuels are much more adapted for short and medium distances, but still not an option for long distance transport. This could create a technological gap between buses and coaches, creating competitive disadvantages in future clean tourist transport. There is an urgent need for standardised and certified knowledge. This would facilitate authorities and companies to take the right decision on technology (implementation, purchase etc). Support and resources at EU level are needed to ensure a technological breakthrough in Europe. At a local level, support is crucial to test and introduce new technologies.

3 Statement 2 Cars are the biggest competitors for the sector, not trains and planes. Public-private partnership at local level is key to make collective transport competitive with the private car. Collective transport should be prioritised in urban planning and infrastructure (dedicated lines, appropriate parking policies, appropriate taxation etc.). On a European level, regulation, ticket prices and information platforms could be harmonised. There exists an open and ready market of younger travelers. This segment of the population would be more willing to use this mode of transport over flight, if prices were more competitive. Coach travel could be marketed as being more relaxed, with none of the restrictions associated with airport control.

4 Statement 3 Improve diesel engines instead of investing in electric or hydrogen engines. Classic diesel technology is clean (EuroVI), but political and social pressure are increasing to go for cleaner technologies/fuels. Tailpipe emissions cause peaks in the day. Existing alternative fuels (Gas, LPG, methanol, ethanol, ) emit less particles, but raise the weight. Electric buses can use waste electricity.

5 Statement 4 The image of buses and coach as sustainable transport options is not strong enough. Coaches have a stronger image than buses, since they are perceived as more comfortable and as newer vehicles. Public transport buses have an old-fashioned image of transporting the elderly. They have no brand identity, as they are often mobile advertising billboards for other companies. The advantages of comfort and timesaving are under-exploited. Authorities in Belgium don t communicate the sustainability advantages enough. In Flanders for example, the general public is unaware of De Lijn s hybrid buses. To improve the sustainability image of buses, it is important to keep the entire cycle (production of the buses, environmentally friendly way of transport, the motivation of the employees) in mind.

6 Statement 5 Governments create unfair competition with the air traffic by taxing fuel and providing allowances for kerosene. The coach sector and manufacturers have been doing all they can to keep up with emissions. For airplanes there are no incentives in place to build cleaner and more efficient engines. A call for the introduction of a European climate protection tax on aviation fuel on all intra-eu flights, will provide strong incentives to the aviation industry. India, Japan and the USA already charge a similar tax on domestic flights. There should be a European approach on the political level, since the bus sector is not powerful enough against the lobbying of air companies. The tourism board, the bus manufacturers and the operating companies need to unite and form initiatives. The argument taxing flights would mean thousands of jobs lost needs to be countered by the thousands of jobs that the bus sector holds, alongside the possibility of more employment in case of growth.

7 Statement 6 It is madness to impose the same driving and rest time regulations (RTR) on the bus & coach sector, as on the truck sector. RTR are now set on a 13h or 15h working time per 24h. This should be more flexible for the bus and coach sector. For example: if the bus and it s passengers stop for 3 hour overday, the driver should be able to extend his working day with 3h. The 12-days rule for work/vacation is a step in the right direction, although there s still room for improvement. Some suggested to make a clear difference in rest periods for seasonal activities (like tourist transport by coach) and for cargo transport. This should enable the bus and coach drivers to take several short rests (min. 24h) a week and to recuperate the remaining days at the end of the season.

8 Statement 7 Prioritise comfort instead of sustainability to get more people on board. The quality of the service is the main argument to convince customers. The cost seems to play a less important role. Society and customers take sustainability and safety as granted. They want the service to be safe and green as a precondition.

9 Statement 8 Innovations in the bus sector should be introduced by public bus companies. Long distance buses will be difficult to manage. Private investments are still required and network operators are to be involved. Best practices from Norway and Sweden show how authorities and constructors combine biogas and renewables. Innovations aren t only to be made on the reduction of emissions, but also on the improvement of transmission systems.

10 Statement 9 New buses should be designed like trams or trains, since those are perceived as more environmentally friendly. There is still a lot of conservatism in the bus sector: bus production is more detailed, product series are to low and the investment in communication is much lower than for trams. Electric buses are already very similar to trams: the reduced improves performances, they are styled liked trams and they have a unique image. There are examples of collaborative manufacturing and technology development in low-cost countries. Why not in Europe?

Sustainable transport in Stockholm. Gustaf Landahl City of Stockholm

Sustainable transport in Stockholm Gustaf Landahl City of Stockholm The Capital of Scandinavia Outline Is Stockholms transport sustainable? Stockholm grows fast Carrots and sticks Conclusions Urban Mobility