Referring to the potential for First to improve its bus service offer between Chester & Liverpool, on Monday Neil said,
“Is it too much to hope for that bus companies will stop their petty spats with train companies, stick to the shorter-distance and fill-in stuff they’re better at, and realise that we’re all in it together against the private car?”Why should the bus be subservient to rail? Different in Europe but in England it never has been, neither in the unregulated 1920s, the regulated era from 1931 to 1986, nor yet since deregulation.
It’s true, though, that the railway often does best at longer distances when compared to the bus. Does that mean the bus should always yield to the train, in every situation? Does this mean that the bus should act merely as a feeder to the nearest rail-head? Should the bus operate longer distances only where there is no rail line?
Aside from fact that buses are free to operate when and where they wish, the two can be complementary. They can co-exist. And even though they may compete, together they can offer two alternatives to the car, not one. And a bus that parallels a rail corridor has some obvious advantages over the train:
- In urban areas, buses tend to stop every 400 yards or so. This is far more flexible than rail.
- Those eligible may use their free travel pass on the bus.
- Buses also have the ability to divert to housing that’s remote from the railway.
- One service can help keep fares down on the other.
- Buses tend to offer easy access and this isn’t always available on the railway (station), to wheelchair users.
- Buses can be and often are more frequent.
- The bus *can* and actually usually does act as a shuttle, of course, for those that wish to take this option and this is useful for some passengers, perhaps those changing again onto the strategic rail network.
It isn’t in our culture to catch a local bus to the station thence a train. Where this is forced upon us, we rail against it (excuse the pun).
So, when in 1980 Tyne & Wear PTE completed its Metro, it forced passengers who used the bus to transfer to light rail. It cut short buses that would, for example, have worked through to Newcastle from south of the Tyne. Passengers would need to decant at the appropriate Metro station to complete their journey by rail. This idealistic, Utopian approach was fine on paper and it even saved bus resources. It was certainly a planners’ dream.
Wirral buses on Merseyside first connected with the Mersey ferries and latterly with trains that crossed under the river. With the competition in 1976 of the MPTE central Liverpool “Loop & Link” underground rail system, Merseyside PTE ensured that buses from the Wirral terminated on the Wirral. Liverpool passengers then had to complete their journey by rail.
What happened in 1986 was the ability of bus operators to serve the latent demand they knew to exist. In both these circumstances, operators began working buses through (again, in the case of cross-Tyne services). Here are good examples of operators who knew their market and acted commercially to service it. Such services have never looked back. Witness the Wirral Silver Service, now called the Cross River Express. And, of course, about seven years ago, First got in on the act by sending Heswall buses that terminated at Birkenhead over to Liverpool.
There are still people in Tyneside & Merseyside who, for whatever reason, transfer from bus to rail. But don’t let it be said that this serves the majority of passengers who head for their main destination by bus. Given the choice, that’s what they prefer. It’s a lot less hassle, for one thing. And it saves time, for another.
Photo & additional information: Omnibuses’ Northern Correspondent
55 comments:
Thinking about what has been written, the UK is the only country in western Europe (except perhaps very recently the Republic of Ireland) that has legislation permitting buses and coaches to compete directly with rail. Try that in France or Germany where railways are heavily protected from such competition and have been for years . . .
The demise of Veolia transport left the valley without a direct bus to our capital. The natives were restless. Despite a 15 minutely service which linked to another quarter hourly direct bus into Cardiff, with through tickets available, there were complaints that people had to change buses. Stagecoach decided to extend one service an hour to go to Cardiff.
Passenger numbers that use the service to Cardiff aren't high at all. Yesterday morning, 3 people used their first bus to travel into Cardiff. There were only a couple more returning at 5pm. Numbers weren't high on the Pontypridd - Cardiff section when Veolia ran the service, so they halved the number of services.
By way of comparison, the trains running at a similar time to the buses I caught yesterday would be heaving. 2 extra carriages would be added to the train in the morning.
It seems certain that the train is the mode of transport of choice for those commuting to work. From Aberdare, trains are half hourly. The cost of a return is just over £1 more and a weekly costs almost a fiver extra. The train takes an hour; the bus takes 15 minutes longer (or half an hour + on the busy morning run).
Bus travel to Cardiff from the Valley has certainly decreased over the last decade. I wonder how much of that was due to the total ineptitude of Shamrock and later Veolia transport? Can Stagecoach pull it around with a far more reliable service? Time will tell.
"In urban areas, buses tend to stop every 400 yards or so. This is far more flexible than rail."
True, and I suppose it can be seen that a bus can provide the "local stopping service" for a railway line. One example might be found in east London - fast service = C2C Rail. Semifast service = District Line. Local stopping service = bus 25.
But a stop every 400 yards makes the bus very slow indeed. Again this is where the Continent tends to differ, with stop spacing often more rail-like - in Hamburg I'd guess at every 800m-1 kilometre or so.
"Those eligible may use their free travel pass on the bus."
This brings me onto a key problem - the fares system actively discourages changing between modes and between two buses. If we had a single national fare system where you could just buy a ticket from any A to any B, I'm not sure people would see it the same way. And in urban areas where passes are valid on trains, they're heavily used on trains.
A fault in the fare system does not serve as a justification. It needs to be fixed.
This fault is particularly inexcusable in London, where there *is* a single fares system - but a nonsensical penalty for changing buses or onto a bus.
For London, my view would be that the system should be the following, which wouldn't be hard to implement on Oyster, even if you didn't do it for paper tickets for passback fraud reasons:-
1. If you touch out from the Tube, you can touch in for a bus journey for free within 30 minutes of touching out.
2. If you touch in on a bus, you can touch in on another bus for free within 60 minutes of that touch-in.
If that causes a slight fare rise to cover losses, fine. Why should someone who is already penalised by not having a through bus be financially penalised as well?
"Buses also have the ability to divert to housing that’s remote from the railway."
True, though often at the expense of journey time.
"One service can help keep fares down on the other."
I'll go again to my point that an integrated fares system is a better option.
"Buses tend to offer easy access and this isn’t always available on the railway (station), to wheelchair users."
Again true, though rail is getting better at this almost as quickly as buses are.
"Buses can be and often are more frequent."
True. Though above a certain point, probably half-hourly, frequency is "acceptable", and I might still choose in that case to use a faster train over a slower bus.
Neil
"It’s a lot less hassle, for one thing. And it saves time, for another."
Missed that one.
It is less hassle, yes. But a through bus only saves time because of poorly-designed networks without guaranteed connections, IMO.
Trains and trams seem to have less stigma surrounding them,London apart.Despite annual price rises, rail usage has increased to record levels.
Perhaps some of the bus bosses need to target the more affluent,or play the green card more strongly ?
Local buses used to be called stage-carrage services, which in some cases, is probably the average speed at which they travel.Without bus lanes and other priority measures,this will always limit their success.
In most PTE areas (like Merseyside or Tyne and Wear) the concessionary passes are also valid on the train/metro/ferry. Tyne and Wear PTE even have specific tickets (a throwback to the 80s) called a Transfare where you can start on the bus and end on the Metro.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with the bus competing with the metro or the train, providing it is genuine competition and not creaming subsidy away from areas without any service. There are parts of Tyne and Wear which have a very poor bus service because the Metro runs parallel and is quicker and therefore more popular.
The issue with terminating all the buses in Gateshead was that people didn't want to change for the last mile or so into Newcastle, they couldn't see the point. However you only have to look at the way Newcastle city centre is choked up with Go-Ahead buses terminating to see that it's a shame we can't go back to it.
@ dolphin:
There are regular express coaches from Hamburg to Munich. Indeed, Hamburg had a large coach station built not all that long ago.
Buses and trains serve different markets and there's nothing at all wrong with that. Sometimes I take the bus from Newcastle to Carlisle because it is half the price, sometimes time is important and I get the train. It's nice to have the choice.
Buses were never subsidiary to rail in the UK? What, not even when most buses in England and Wales were part owned by railway companies? Or for most of the regulated era, when an objection from BR in Traffic Court killed any new initiative stone dead?
Also, bad example with the Wirral bus services. The Cross River Express from New Brighton was started by MPTE before the Loop line opened, and the through buses from Heswall (418/419) were started by Crosville (at MPTE behest) not long after.
"I don't think that there is anything wrong with the bus competing with the metro or the train, providing it is genuine competition and not creaming subsidy away from areas without any service."
Except it pretty much always *is* creaming off subsidy, because most rail networks are subsidised.
Neil
Neil - you are avoiding the main point. If passengers want to use the bus, and the bus companies make a profit from running a service filled with people wanting to use the bus - then why should they not run it?
""I don't think that there is anything wrong with the bus competing with the metro or the train, providing it is genuine competition and not creaming subsidy away from areas without any service."
Except it pretty much always *is* creaming off subsidy, because most rail networks are subsidised"
So are you saying that because railways are subsidied, bus companies should be forced to not operate a service that people want to use - thus denying passengers one key thing, choice. Which hardly goes with your views that public transport as a whole should be competing against the car, if one transport provider is being forced not to provide a service people would use.
"But a stop every 400 yards makes the bus very slow indeed. Again this is where the Continent tends to differ, with stop spacing often more rail-like - in Hamburg I'd guess at every 800m-1 kilometre or so."
Plenty of people cannot walk that far. How are buses supposed to be accessible when people can't even get to the stops?
""Buses tend to offer easy access and this isn’t always available on the railway (station), to wheelchair users."
Again true, though rail is getting better at this almost as quickly as buses are"
No it's not!! There's plenty of stations along my line that will never, ever see wheelchair access as it's just impossible to build it.
""It’s a lot less hassle, for one thing. And it saves time, for another."
Missed that one.
It is less hassle, yes. But a through bus only saves time because of poorly-designed networks without guaranteed connections, IMO."
How so? You're saying that a slow rail line with stopping services that can be matched/beaten in journey time with a fast interurban bus service is a "poorly designed network". Unless you're proposing some railway stations should loose their service to be faster than the bus... I wouldn't call a piece of road that enables a bus to go fast a poorly designed network.
With your utopic views about how there should be one wonderful network with joint fares, and buses feeding to trains, which you always reiterate again and again - you always miss one key point - what the passenger wants.
If the passenger is happy with their bus service, then why the hell should it all be destroyed just to fufill your aim that buses shouldn't "compete" with trains, and the bus should always feed to the train.
That makes no sense at all compared to your other view that public transport as a whole should compete with the car. If you go around making changes, destroying links plenty of people currently use, then you are removing choice and disrupting people's travel passengers.
How that will encouragge people to use public transport is anyone's guess.
Changing services people are happy to use now will only result in a decrease in passenger numbers. Even with through fares, people still do not want to change mode of travel, especially in the winter.
"So are you saying that because railways are subsidied, bus companies should be forced to not operate a service that people want to use - thus denying passengers one key thing, choice."
But providing that choice increases the cost of providing for everyone, because the railway requires more subsidy because of the passengers abstracted from it.
I have a feeling we'll never agree here - because my overriding view is that public transport networks should be designed and specified by an overall authority, then if competition is seen as a useful feature they should be put out to tender either in whole or in parts for operation. Like the London bus model, if you like.
So the *whole* of public transport competes with the use of a car for the entire journey. Not so public transport competes internally to shift passengers between modes when public transport carries such a tiny percentage of overall journeys.
"Unless you're proposing some railway stations should loose their service to be faster than the bus..."
Yes, they probably should. There are places where this has happened, e.g. Stoke-Stafford, where the local "train" is now the X1 bus.
The problem is that these bus services tend to be stand-alone, which is a symptom of there being no overall authority in control of both. That's no good. They need to be integrated into the national fares and timetable system. Yes, I know there isn't one - but my point is *there should be*.
"If the passenger is happy with their bus service, then why the hell should it all be destroyed just to fufill your aim that buses shouldn't "compete" with trains, and the bus should always feed to the train."
That statement shows once again the overriding conservatism of the bus industry (remember, there are masses more potential passengers out there). And my experience is that most passengers are not *happy* with their bus service. Most of them tolerate it as least-worst option, or in some cases only option.
No, I don't believe all through services should be withdrawn in all cases - that'd be equally nonsense. But I equally don't think that it's helpful that our city bus and train networks are not integrated in terms of fares, timetables and change points.
Direct buses to the city centre are all very well. But increasingly the city centre is not the destination, and the car is winning there!
"Changing services people are happy to use now will only result in a decrease in passenger numbers."
Initially, perhaps. But again I point to the opportunities for expansion.
"Even with through fares, people still do not want to change mode of travel, especially in the winter."
This point keeps being asserted, and it is to some extent true. But people can and do change modes. And that's more likely if those changes aren't actively penalised as they presently are.
As I posted earlier, London is particularly outrageous in this regard - with an integrated network, why oh why does it not have an integrated fares system? Conservatism again, this time on the part of the legislators?
Neil
Neil,
as I said before, British people are incapable of understanding the benefits of an integrated network. I've given up long ago! You've lived in Germany so you understand. Most people reading this have no idea.
Also, you have to bear in mind that it is in the interests of people like Busing (i.e. industry bosses) to keep the status quo so no wonder he will write what he has written.
British people don't like changing because the experience of changing is so bad in this country! Why should a Dutch or Swiss person be happy to change but not a Brit? It doesn't make sense. It must be simply down to the passenger's experiences.
"And my experience is that most passengers are not *happy* with their bus service."
Please evidence this as the Passenger Focus bus surveys undertaken up and down the country over the past 18-months suggest a very different picture with high levels of user satisfaction just about everywhere at levels the rail industry is only just attaining after years of these surveys. Of course there may have been a recent change due to the general doom and gloom surrounding local authority spending cuts that pervades the industry at the moment.
On the issue of Neil's proposed national fares system - why is it necessary? Intergration of fares doesn't mean on a national level, who would want a bus fare from Bath to say Manchester and how would it be administered without becoming costly and unweildy?
One of the few good things PTE's (sorry ITA's) do well is the multi operator / multi modal tickets - okay its a rover ticket so not good value for single journeys but rover tickets are simple for people to understand and generally excellent value for money for those making more than a one way journey.
Having had first hand experience of running a multi operator bus ticket outside of an ITA area the biggest stumbling block on making it multi modal are rail operators - the paranoia of how revenue would be apportioned, potential for fraud and working out how ticket barriers would cope just made the whole process painfull.
The Passengers Focus only measures what EXISTING bus users think. Is PT patronage higher in Switzerland or Britain?
"On the issue of Neil's proposed national fares system - why is it necessary?"
He was talking about the lack of integration between the X1 rail replacement bus and the national rail network.
If the Tyne & Wear Metro had been built as a guided busway, buses from all over Co Durham would have a direct link across the Tyne without "choking" central Newcastle.
It would be interesting to learn how the Swiss apportion revenue between operators. Last year, while staying in Luzern I bought a *Tell Pass*. It was not cheap but it was valid on local trains, main line trains, paddle steamers, post buses, city buses, mountain railways, cable cars and virtually anything else that moved over a wide swathe of central Switzerland. Whilst the ticket was checked from time to time no record was made of the journey being undertaken to enable each operator to claim its share.
"Please evidence this as the Passenger Focus bus surveys undertaken up and down the country over the past 18-months suggest a very different picture with high levels of user satisfaction just about everywhere"
Unless you mandate completion of these surveys by every passenger, there's always the chance they are not representative. FWIW, I normally decline to complete them because they are fairly pointless in the form they are used.
"On the issue of Neil's proposed national fares system - why is it necessary?"
Necessary, probably not. Useful, certainly. There are key "missing links" in the rail network filled by buses - the UCOC X5 "Varsity Line" is possibly one of the best examples.
And wouldn't it be nice to be able to buy a return from X to Y regardless of the modes involved?
The bus industry doesn't do bus to bus connections as a norm let alone bus to rail. The fare system also actively discourages changing and so most 'networks' are a collection of standalone routes. Even when routes are interworked, that is usually for the benefit of the operator rather than the passenger.
Pete
One approach for smaller towns where frequencies don't make for convenient connections could be the American 'Pulse' system, where by buses converge at several interchange sites on a fixed cycle (say every 30 minutes), thus facilitating connections. Doing this well creates a network effect that makes it possible to travel from point A to point B at minimal inconvenience on a single fare, even when these points are not on a direct route. Think how people use the London Underground, or continental tram systems. They can do quite complex journeys and don't mind changing lines because it works.
As our urban areas have altered to suit the car employment, retail, and public amenities have become dispersed, often to the edge of town. Traditional bus networks remain radial routes centred on town centres, and do not cater for these new travel markets. A pulse system could be the way to access that travel market.
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/12/basics-finding-your-pulse.html
By not catering for passengers interchanging at rail stations bus operators are also missing a potential market. In my town the station car parks are full, charging £7.10 per day! Yet the local town network run by Faresaver Buses is focussed on the needs of shoppers, and packs up when the shops shut.
http://www.faresaver.co.uk/timetables/4e1b0997164d6.pdf
Focussing on the station as well as the town centre would keep buses busy well into mid evening as commuters return home.
These potential customers would in the main be fare payers, which would reduce the bus company's dependancy on diminishing concessionary travel reimbursement rates.
I know it sounds simplistic but is it not the case that if the buses received just a percentage of rail subsidy we could all have the bus service service we wish for,provided the bus companies are obliged to run their services by law.ie REGULATION ?
@ Padbus:
If the Tyne & Wear Metro had been built as a guided busway, buses from all over Co Durham would have a direct link across the Tyne without "choking" central Newcastle.
The Metro operates across the city centre in tunnels, so how would a guided busway (technology that wasn't there in 1977) have actually worked? And would all operators have signed up to it- even in a city like Leeds, one of the main operators (Transdev) doesn't have buses compatible with the busway.
There's no reason why every single local bus in Gateshead needs to go to Newcastle city centre, especially where many (e.g. from Jarrow, South Shields) duplicate the Metro and purpose-built interchanges were built in places like Gateshead, Heworth and Gosforth.
As for revenue sharing, why would it be done on a per-passenger basis? Revenue sharing on the railways- a far more complicated network than most local bus networks- is done per journey offered not per passenger and it works well.
Nexus operate a Transfare system for single journeys involving bus and either train, metro or ferry in Tyne and Wear and, again, revenue sharing is not an issue. One fare takes you from the edge of Tyne and Wear to any other place in Tyne and Wear on a zonal system. If Nexus can do it why can't anyone else (and indeed why won't bus companies allow Nexus to run a bus-to-bus Transfare)?
The north east one-day rail rover and the north east one day bus rover have overlapping validity- Berwick, Hexham, Middlesbrough, Whitby- so there's no reason why these tickets can't be linked. The North East Explorer ticket (the one day bus rover) is an excellent example of what can be done so I don't understand why it cannot be done more often.
There's no reason why we cannot have integrated ticketing, it comes down to commercial intransigence. More often than not this is on the part of the bus operators, as WYPTE found out when they tried to bring in the Any Bus day ticket.
As for the Passenger Focus surveys, I've completed them before. They specifically state that the answers must relate to your most recent bus journey, not your opinions of bus travel in general. Unless the actual bus I'm travelling on is late I can't say I'm dissatisfied with punctuality, even if (as is the case of Stagecoach Newcastle) the timetable is generally regarded as a work of fiction by drivers and passengers alike.
One last thing to add: what of PlusBus? They can get that scheme to work but nobody ever seems to be very good at advertising it (I've had more than one blank look from bus drivers).
There are a number of problems with attracting commuters. Buses are targeting the bottom 20% of the market with their main market being pensioners, school children & woman with buggies,. The issue can be particularly bad in some areas such as Wales where concessionary passes are valid at all times.
Lack of ticket interchangability is another big problem particularly when services are low frequency or you have to use more than one company’s services which can almost double the cost of a journey
Poor timetables and schedules and routes are another issue. To many stops on longer distance routes is another problem. More limited stop/semi express routes are needed. Where these have been implemented they have been very successful.
Anon (08:57) said, correctly:
Trains and trams seem to have less stigma surrounding them,London apart.Despite annual price rises, rail usage has increased to record levels.
Imagine for one moment a world where citizens could drive their own private trainlets and tramlets around the rail network. Public trains are no less frequent in this world, but nevertheless account for only one in several hundred or so of those passing your platform as you wait.
My reckoning is that the public train/tram would soon be no less stigmatized than the bus.
It's not about being seen on the bus, so much as been seen waiting for one.
Buses are not good at connecting with other buses let alone with trains. This and fare systems that actively discourage transfers, makes most passengers think of only their local route and not a whole network.
As our urban areas have changed to accommodate mass car use (out of town retail, leisure, employment parks, health care etc) travel patterns have become dispersed. Traditional networks offering one seat rides cannot cater for this very well, so they remain focussed on radial routes to town centres.
Networks would need to be re designed to offer a more grid-like coverage relying on connections in order to cater for the new urban geography. North American bus systems do this, and as a result most main streets have only one or two routes serving them. Passengers transfer as appropriate where routes cross each other, using free transfer slips.
Light rail and tram systems always encourage interchange and people are happy to do because of the minimal waiting time.
On lower frequency networks the US uses timed transfers or ‘pulses’, where buses converge at interchanges on a regular cycle, such that even where frequencies are only hourly or half hourly passengers can still make journeys between any two places on the network as waiting times at interchanges are minimal.
http://www.humantransit.org/basics/page/2/
Regarding bus/rail interchange, focussing on a local station could open up a new market of affluent commuters. For example in my home town of Chippenham, the station car park is full even at £7.10 per day! The local town bus service however only caters for the lower end market of local shoppers, and shuts down when the shops close. Yet trainloads of commuters will be arriving well into mid evening, some of whom may appreciate a bus ride home. These commuters are likely to be full fare payers, and their revenue would help to mitigate the losses on concessionary fare re-imbursement, and therefore give the operator more control over its revenue.
the station car park is full even at £7.10 per day!
Lucky you! It's £11.50 a day here at the station car park.
This is part of the increase by stealth that is applied quietly by TOCs and never attracts the headlines that the actual rail fares increases (8% etc) attract.
Same at airports (-:
Probably more money in running the car park than in flying the planes!
"The Passengers Focus only measures what EXISTING bus users think. "
And your point is? If you had bothered to read the entire thread you would have realised Neil said "And my experience is that most passengers are not *happy* with their bus service." this statement appears to have been made without evidence, whereas the PF surveys suggest a very different situation.
"He was talking about the lack of integration between the X1 rail replacement bus and the national rail network."
Plusbus? Plusbus does appear to be the transport sectors best value secret. Whilst there is some promotion of plusbus by bus operators it awareness appears virtually non existent at rail stations where I would have thought is the best place to promote a rail add-on ticket. Always strikes me as a bit odd promoting the ticket on a bus as its a bit too late to see the ticket after completing your rail journey.
Neil said "Unless you mandate completion of these surveys by every passenger, there's always the chance they are not representative. FWIW, I normally decline to complete them because they are fairly pointless in the form they are used."
Ah so your one of the 'its all rubbish but I'm not going to bother to tell you why' brigade, slightly worse than the armchair transport managers who at least bother to tell you what is wrong.
A mandate for completing questionnaires is unworkable.
If you had even a basic understanding of statistical analysis you would understand that as long as you get the volume of voluntary responses statistically you will get an accurate representation of people's views.
The PF surveys have formed an integral part of passenger rail strategy for some years and therefore haven't been 'fairly pointless' in that industry.
The blog entry is all well and good, but if there is evidence of bus operators having spats with train companies over the mid-to-long-distance routes **at the expense of** their more local bread & butter, this has to be a bad thing.
If a bus company can additionally provide resources to cater for the local gap in the urban market, all the better, but does this happen? Really?
The train often wins as off-peak fares between reasonably close urban areas aren't that expensive at all. The OAPs are those propping up the bus services in these cases.
This thread stinks of total ignorance of how PT is run in Switzerland, Netherlands etc.
Typical Anglo-Saxon attitude in failing to look at places where English is not the first language.
Can anyone with SUBSTANTIAL knowledge and experience of Swiss/German/Dutch urban transport and in particular fare systems say that the British way is better?
"This thread stinks of total ignorance of how PT is run in Switzerland, Netherlands etc."
Is this blog actually about Swiss or Dutch buses and public transport, then?
"Is this blog actually about Swiss or Dutch buses and public transport, then?"
The author insists that the British way of not integrating transport is the best and comments on here support that view. Busing even mentions Europe in his post. If you haven't studied transport in places with good patronage and good international reputation, how can you claim the British way of low patronage and bad integration is best?
It is absolutely ESSENTIAL for people to understand how PT works in successful countries like Switzerland and Netherlands. Patronage is high in this country and PT is widely used for work trips.
Even Busing admits that British buses don't carry many commuters. So Britain is obviously doing something wrong and CH/NL are doing something right.
"Patronage is high in this country"
I meant 'patronage is high in these countries'.
And it isn't just to do with bus priority and subsidy.
Why is it better to charge more for a single journey that involves a change than the same journey that is direct? Busing appears to support this practice. Why?
Do keep any comments coming if you like. I will nevertheless try to come back to some of these, later.
surely this all revolves around what Dolphin said in the very first comment on this thread 24 hours ago!
No, we won't ever see eye to eye, because your utopian view that a good network with buses feeding to trains, with no evidence that it will increase passenger numbers, is plagued with inconsistencies.
Neil said...
" I said... "So are you saying that because railways are subsidised, bus companies should be forced to not operate a service that people want to use - thus denying passengers one key thing, choice."
But providing that choice increases the cost of providing for everyone, because the railway requires more subsidy because of the passengers abstracted from it."
So, in this 'public transport united' against the car view you have, you are worried about cost as a factor. That makes no sense. Surely, good travel options for the passenger should come far higher up the rank than cost, in your utopian view? Please explain why people happy to travel on the bus should be denied their service and be forced to make a trip then change to a train, and how that will improve their journey?
Neil said... "I have a feeling we'll never agree here - because my overriding view is that public transport networks should be designed and specified by an overall authority, then if competition is seen as a useful feature they should be put out to tender either in whole or in parts for operation. Like the London bus model, if you like.
So the *whole* of public transport competes with the use of a car for the entire journey. Not so public transport competes internally to shift passengers between modes when public transport carries such a tiny percentage of overall journeys."
I still don't see how in a public transport network designed and specified by an overall authority, what the problem of buses and trains running in parallel is. They both offer different postive and negative aspects. Why should they be considered as in competition, when they are providing different needs to different people? They compliment, not compete.
Neil said...
" I said "Unless you're proposing some railway stations should loose their service to be faster than the bus..."
Yes, they probably should. There are places where this has happened, e.g. Stoke-Stafford, where the local "train" is now the X1 bus."
That's a brilliant one that is. With rail travel increasing as much as ever, you want to cut services to stations and replace them with buses?! Maybe there's some examples of where it has worked, but with past experience with the Beeching Axe and replacement bus services, we know a hell of a lot of them didn't...
Shouldn't it be about choice for the traveller? Haven't Kings Ferry announced an increase in their commuter traffic to London because of high train fares? If the travellers want it, why shouldn't they get it?
Not sure about the rest of you, but I actually live in Germany, and can enjoy the benefits of the wonderful integrated system of public transport, and all of those "guaranteed connections" that you refer to (from across the pond). Well, I'm a day late commenting because I was experiencing the benefits of the system yesterday.
Or perhaps not. The reality is that it doesn't always work, just as it doesn't always work in the UK. Tran scheduled to arrive at station at 1304. 4 minutes walk (according to the DB) to the bus stop, and connecting bus departs at 1310. So 2 minutes spare. Reality: train was 5 minutes late; I ran to the bus stop, so got there at 1311. Where was the bus? Already gone, of course. "Guaranteed connection" - forget it!
Or you might perhaps ask yourself why Karlsruhe has been developing its S-Bahn system over the last 15-20 years, by introducing light rail vehicles which can operate the suburban rail network, but transfer to the city tram tracks to bring people direct to the city centre, instead of depositing them at the central station, and leaving them to transfer to a city tram to reach their ultimate destination. Have the designers of the network realised that people (even German people!) don't like being asked to change vehicles, but they prefer something that is, as near as possible, door-to-door? A bit like the way people can use their cars. The Karlsruhe system is seen as successful, and often held up as a model of attractive, modern public transport, for others to follow. Changing vehicles or modes is not popular, as the evidence from Tyne and Wear suggests. Obliging people to do so is also not popular - people like to have a choice!
"I still don't see how in a public transport network designed and specified by an overall authority, what the problem of buses and trains running in parallel is."
It is and it isn't. I've posted elsewhere situations where it might work. The point is more about duplication of effort, as it were, particularly where one service is subsidised and the other is not.
(I think the current hotch-potch of a regulated and subsidised railway and a semi-regulated bus system doesn't work. Either regulate the lot - my preferred option - or deregulate the lot).
"A mandate for completing questionnaires is unworkable."
Of course, and I never suggested otherwise. What I might be tempted to suggest, though, is that you won't necessarily get a balanced demographic completing these questionnaires - and most importantly they do not ask those who are *not* travelling by bus why they do *not* do so.
"He was talking about the lack of integration between the X1 rail replacement bus and the national rail network."
I think the fares are integrated for that, no? But there are other examples where they're not. Plusbus is a good idea, and works for city bus network to city bus network - if only it were publicised better and if only ticket machines could sell it. But many inter-regional bus services, e.g. the Oxford-Cambridge X5, the Stagecoach 99, the Trawscambria etc, provide a sensible "middle bit" for a train journey. Yet the fares system has no scope to recognise this.
This was particularly disappointing in Wales, where the option of making Trawscambria a "fill in the gaps" virtual train was rejected - why? Wales, with its patchy rail network, is IMO a perfect candidate for an integrated fares system.
"One approach for smaller towns where frequencies don't make for convenient connections could be the American 'Pulse' system, where by buses converge at several interchange sites on a fixed cycle (say every 30 minutes), thus facilitating connections."
AKA a "Taktfahrplan", as the Germans and Swiss would have it. But yes, that is a good thing, and it costs so little and requires only a little thought if you have a logical point (e.g. a central bus station) to do it in.
""And my experience is that most passengers are not *happy* with their bus service." this statement appears to have been made without evidence, whereas the PF surveys suggest a very different situation."
To paraphrase the Honda advert of some time ago, perhaps this is a question of terminology. My local bus service is adequate, OK, tolerable, usable etc (indeed I suspect I'm going to find myself using it fairly shortly today). What it isn't is *good*. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "happy".
Do most people think their local bus service is "OK", when you survey the subset of people that are actually using it? Probably. Do most people, users or otherwise, think it's *good*? I suspect far fewer. And what answer you get depends on how the survey is worded.
"The OAPs are those propping up the bus services in these cases."
One of the many reasons why I believe the free passes to be a very, very bad thing for transport in general, as they skew several markets the wrong way.
"So, in this 'public transport united' against the car view you have, you are worried about cost as a factor. That makes no sense."
Of course it does. There is not unlimited money available, and using it to run a bus paralelling a railway with plenty of spare capacity is not sensible use of it.
"That's a brilliant one that is. With rail travel increasing as much as ever, you want to cut services to stations and replace them with buses?! Maybe there's some examples of where it has worked, but with past experience with the Beeching Axe and replacement bus services, we know a hell of a lot of them didn't..."
That's again because Beeching didn't do it properly. If the replacement bus services had been subsidised like the rail system became to ensure continuity of service, if they had been fully integrated into the railway timetable and fares system, I think it wouldn't have been as bad.
And there's limited rail capacity out there, and it's expensive. It might be that closing a few local stations on a given line can allow the operation of a proper regular interval fast service, with those local stations getting a bus service to another station. That might still come out on top. The Swiss and Germans have certainly done it.
But let's look at another example of the madness.
The Conwy Valley railway runs from Llandudno via Llandudno Junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog. So does the X1 bus, serving a fair few of the same places. The bus runs mainly at the same time as the trains, in an attempt to compete. Both run at rather low frequencies of about one service every 3 hours. They both take about the same amount of time.
Why not, then, integrate the two to fill in the gaps and provide a memorable regular-interval timetable?
"Do most people think their local bus service is "OK", when you survey the subset of people that are actually using it? Probably. Do most people, users or otherwise, think it's *good*? I suspect far fewer. And what answer you get depends on how the survey is worded."
If you're not a user how do you know if it is *good*? I'm not a user of Asda so I don't really know if it is *good* or not, I may harbour misconceptions about the place but it doesn't mean I would be able to accurately judge whether it is good or not.
"The Conwy Valley railway runs from Llandudno via Llandudno Junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog. So does the X1 bus, serving a fair few of the same places. The bus runs mainly at the same time as the trains, in an attempt to compete. Both run at rather low frequencies of about one service every 3 hours. They both take about the same amount of time.
Why not, then, integrate the two to fill in the gaps and provide a memorable regular-interval timetable?"
I'll give you that one as an example of wasteful duplication. However wasn't the X1 born out of the demand of concessions travelling up the valley to Llandudno who used to go by train (and pay) but since the advent of the concessionary pass scheme an enterprising local operator say an opportunity for a new bus service carrying the concessions up the valley and claiming the reimbursement - everyone's happy except the rail operator.
People have to be a bit careful in how they use the example of Tyne and Wear integration to prove or disprove particular theories. I grew up watching that network develop and also commented extensively on service proposals. A few years later I even did some bus service planning for the PTE.
The cross river example is frequently cited as some sort of horror story. The facts were that high frequency services terminated at Metro interchanges with properly planned joint headways on common sections. From most parts of Gateshead there were still inter urban routes from County Durham running direct into Newcastle that people could choose to use if they wished. The corridors served generally had a well balaned headway on these routes. In addition there were express routes which also ran on co-ordinated headways (X4, X5 and X94 via Gateshead, Springwell to Washington as one example).
North of the tyne there were still through buses to Newcastle via Regent Centre and Four Lane Ends interchanges to Newcastle. When there was proper integration more people opted to use Metro and Bus to Killingworth on routes 62 and 63 than bothered to sit on the direct 62/63 trips from Newcastle than ran via Byker. Perhaps this is because there was a 5 min headway from the Metro interchange?
I would not deny that there are some innovative and attractive services in today's deregulated network in Tyne and Wear. However the overall network coverage is far, far worse than prior to Oct 86. Network capacity has also declined considerably with former double deck routes easily replaced by single decks on lower frequencies. There are also stupid things like duplicated route numbers in Newcastle, Sunderland and South Shields which would never have happened in the integrated era. There is little sense in which there is a network anymore - it's simply a collection of services on particular corridors and you're stuffed if you don't live on them!
While the transfare system has survived it is a shadow of its former self and far less convenient. The only advantage these days is that one day rover tickets of various types can, at least, be bought on bus. That wasn't possible in the days of integration although Travelticket seasons were such excellent value that many people held those.
Personally I liked the T&W integrated network and while it was not perfect it was far better than what exists today in terms of providing comprehensive, properly planned and operated services.
"If you're not a user how do you know if it is *good*?"
You don't. But you presumably have a reason why you don't use it, valid or otherwise. That needs tackling.
Anyway, earlier on today I took a bus. It was satisfactory - it was on time, the driver was polite and the fare wasn't expensive. However, some of the seats were ripped and vandalised, it was generally a bit mucky and there was litter all over the place.
Was it "OK", yes. It did the job.
Was I *happy* with it? No, it wasn't as good as it could have been.
See my point? Those who *have* to use the bus are probably resigned to such things.
Yes, those things are caused by passengers, but it's a fact of operational life that they are, so they still need to be dealt with to make the experience better. Integration is the same, I guess - it's "OK" without it, but with it it would be so much better.
Neil
"I'll give you that one as an example of wasteful duplication. However wasn't the X1 born out of the demand of concessions travelling up the valley to Llandudno who used to go by train (and pay)"
I think it's been around longer than that. But it is true that the owner of the company that runs it (Express Motors, a fairly big local business not yet snapped up by any of the big groups for some reason) was a bit miffed that the Council decided to negotiate free pass acceptance on the train service...
Neil
As often occurs,there is plenty of good common sense and interesting input,especially on this subject.If only it could be used to influence some of the industry's regulators and a few politicians.
Whilst the UK bumbles along with it's un-integrated public transport and seemingly without a national strategy to increase use across all modes,I'm surprised that some of the foreign transport concerns which have operations in this country do not try a bit harder to enlighten us little-Islanders. People are people, and moving them around should have been advanced much more than in recent years.The huge investment in parts of Europe came after WW2 had flattened the centres of many towns and cities, allowing a fresh start in laying them out for modern access.The UK has spent very little by contrast,and I'm sure we can all think of locations where modest infrastructure improvementst would ease ancient bottle-necks and congestion...but where are the funds,and where is the plan?
"but where are the funds,and where is the plan?"
More "where is the plan". Some time ago Milton Keynes Council put a pointless set of bus lanes up Midsummer Boulevard, presumably to use up that year's funding. Pointless, because where they were placed never experiences any traffic congestion at all. Indeed, in some ways dangerous, because people now turn left across the bus lane, and there have been accidents resulting from this.
Yet the junction just before the shopping centre could have been modified for bus priority - and that would have saved a good few minutes off each journey at busy times.
Where is the desire to do it properly, rather than just box ticking? To be fair, though, this is Councils (not) at work, not bus companies...
@ anonymous 1055. I rather suspect that the foreign interests in the UK want to learn how to strip out cost and turn a profit. They know they face the threat of mandatory competition / tendering in their home countries so learning from 25 years (eek!) of UK deregulation is essential. The other element is diversifying their business and spreading their risk so if they do suffer losses at home they have income from elsewhere.
Given there is little political will to make public transport really attractive in this country I doubt we will see the sort of frills that are more commonplace abroad. If no one is demanding it why spend money providing it? A somewhat cynical view I would accept but much of UK public transport provision is still towards the bargain basement end of things barring one or two notable exceptions.
Anonymous said...
"Whilst the UK bumbles along with it's un-integrated public transport and seemingly without a national strategy to increase use across all modes,I'm surprised that some of the foreign transport concerns which have operations in this country do not try a bit harder to enlighten us little-Islanders."
plcd1's point is probably correct about the foreign interests in the UK. However, taking the one that I know best, the Deutsche Bahn, based on their operations in Germany, I am sure that they already know how to "strip out cost" (and I think they do occasionally turn a profit). Not all of the cost saving actually works in practice, and sometimes the consequences are embarrassing and expensive (e.g. the air conditioning systems in the ICE trains, various 'experiments' to save money with wheelsets, or the class 611 diesel units). In some cases these 'savings' have been potentially dangerous, or arguably, even more serious. The DB is happy to spend vast amounts of money on grandiose prestige projects such as Stuttgart 21, especially when some of it is somebody else's money - although, even with that project, there is evidence of penny-pinching which will no doubt have consequences in the future. On the 'bread and butter' operations, on the other hand, cost saving is the order of the day.
You say that the UK does not have a "national strategy to increase use across all modes", but I'm afraid you will be disappointed if you look for anything like that in Germany. Take the English Garden in Munich, where the city transport undertaking would like to convert a bus-only road through the park to a tramway to increase capacity. It has been demonstrated that only rails would be needed, the trams could be built to operate without a current supply for the relatively short stretch involved, but the provincial government (owners of the park) have refused permission. On the other hand, they have agreed to the addition of an extra lane in each direction to the motorway that goes through the park! Strategy to increase use of public transport? Dream on!
On 25 August RC 169 said: -
"Have the designers of the network realised that people (even German people!) don't like being asked to change vehicles, but they prefer something that is, as near as possible, door-to-door? A bit like the way people can use their cars."
I think this is the crucial point here. People will only accept changing vehicles if there is no choice or if it provides a significant time advantage over the alternatives - especially if one leg is infrequent.
Wirral buses on Merseyside first connected with the Mersey ferries and latterly with trains that crossed under the river. With the competition in 1976 of the MPTE central Liverpool “Loop & Link” underground rail system, Merseyside PTE ensured that buses from the Wirral terminated on the Wirral.
Bull. The 31/2 ran through the Mersey Tunnel all the way through the PTE days.
If the Tyne & Wear Metro had been built as a guided busway, buses from all over Co Durham would have a direct link across the Tyne without "choking" central Newcastle.
If it had been built as a guided busway there'd have been about three miles of track in the middle of nowhere before the scheme was abandoned when the county council was abolished by Thatcher.
Guided busways are a waste of time and money.
Post a Comment