Station usage and population living in catchment area

[deltic]

Network Rail recently published an interesting document Long Term Planning Process: Regional Urban Market Study. This provides an overview of the commuter market into each of the major English cities excluding London on each regional rail line.

It shows for each line the number of trips from each station to the city, the total number of trips from that station and the number of people who live within 1km, 3km and 5km of the station. In doing so it shows some interesting anomalies. To take an example Belle View, Reddish North and Ryder Brow all have 11-12,000 people living within 1km of them and each is 3-4 miles from Manchester. Yet the number of people travelling to Manchester from each is 10, 109 and 22 thousand respectively.

A number of thoughts struck me - one why such a huge difference between these stations - and there are lots of other examples out there and the other there still seems huge potential to greatly increase rail travel if the number of trips per person within station catchments areas was to increase to the level of best performing station.

 

[WatcherZero]

Things like proximity to the strategic highway network, car parking availability, average age of residents, whether the station is in proximity of a large centre of employment, etc.. all come into play.

 

[deltic]

I agree that these explain differences across the network but these three stations serve broadly similar areas and are roughly the same distance to Manchester. The service level from each station does differ and a key issue is how easy is it for people to actually access the station from the local area

 

[edwin_m]

Belle Vue is right on the Hyde Road which has a very frequent bus service direct to the city centre. As the distance is relatively short, the slower journey of the bus is counteracted by having less long to wait than for the train, and for most people also more of a walk to the station than to the bus stop at one or both ends.

Ryder Brow and Reddish North are further from Manchester and off the main road so would be expected to have more patronage but I can't see any obvious reason for the difference between them.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Belle Vue is right on the Hyde Road which has a very frequent bus service direct to the city centre. As the distance is relatively short, the slower journey of the bus is counteracted by having less long to wait than for the train, and for most people also less of a walk to the station than to the bus stop at one or both ends.

Ryder Brow and Reddish North are further from Manchester and off the main road so would be expected to have more patronage but I can't see any obvious reason for the difference between them.

yep pretty much spot on

 

[orpine]

The 109,000 from Reddish North seems fairly high. There are about 250 work-days a year, so divide one by the other (I'm assuming the 109,000 is the number of commutter trips per year) and that's only 436 commuters every day. Not many at all.

 

[Starmill]

Belle Vue has always been quiet... I do wonder if maybe Gorton takes a little of it's catchment too with it's better service and some better stock?

 

[Greenback]

As has been mentioned, all sorts of factors come into play, including, in addition those factors already mentioned. frequency of services, perceived levels of comfort and overcrowding, travel times and the level of fares in comparison with parking costs or competing bus routes.

It's far more than catchment area. You could have a well populated catchment area but if people want to drive to the station and can't park their car there, that will be a massive disincentive to using rail.

Similarly, if a bus picks up 25 metres from their front door, and drops them off 35 metres from their workplace, the bus will win, especially if there is a bus every 10 minutes compared to a train every 30 minutes.

If someone has free parking at work, or works nowhere near a station, then they will undoubtedly prefer to drive. Every station and it's catchment area will be slightly different in terms of demographics as well.

 

[DownSouth]

Do the trains go to where people want to go, at the times people want to use it?

Is the service able to be relied upon 365 days a year so people can afford to do without a car?

Is the service priced at a low enough point that people will see it as a competitive option compared to the superior convenience and amenity of a car?

These are the major real questions held by the real people which need to be understood by the planners in their ivory towers.

 

[Greenback]

Do the trains go to where people want to go, at the times people want to use it?

Is the service able to be relied upon 365 days a year so people can afford to do without a car?

Is the service priced at a low enough point that people will see it as a competitive option compared to the superior convenience and amenity of a car?

These are the major real questions held by the real people which need to be understood by the planners in their ivory towers.

The answer to these questions, in the majority of cases is 'no'. But this thread isn't about rail v car, it's more a case of understanding why some stations have more passenger usage than others.

It's been said numerous times, that public transport cannot replace the car!

 

[Moonshot]

Do the trains go to where people want to go, at the times people want to use it?

Is the service able to be relied upon 365 days a year so people can afford to do without a car?

Is the service priced at a low enough point that people will see it as a competitive option compared to the superior convenience and amenity of a car?

These are the major real questions held by the real people which need to be understood by the planners in their ivory towers.

And yet passenger growth is running at about 6% per year with the result that as of now, rail passeneger numbers are at an all time high. Clearly the industry is getting it right .....

 

[Greenback]

As with station usage, there are a lot of other factors contributing to the growth in passengers numbers. Like station usage, growth is not equal either, so the question is similar - what are the factors and how much influence do they have on demand?

 

[alwaystouchout]

Reddish North feels a lot 'busier' (relatively speaking) than it was a few years ago. Most people will use the high frequency 203 to get into Manchester, simply for reasons of convenience.

 

[Taunton]

Also, when comparing different urban areas, some "central" stations are much more appropriately placed than others. Birmingham and Leeds have good central locations, while Bristol of major cities is probably the worst.

 

[alwaystouchout]

Also, when comparing different urban areas, some "central" stations are much more appropriately placed than others. Birmingham and Leeds have good central locations, while Bristol of major cities is probably the worst.

Derby is a short stretch out of the city centre too.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Belle Vue has always been quiet... I do wonder if maybe Gorton takes a little of it's catchment too with it's better service and some better stock?

"Always" is a word that only applies to the memory of the sayer.

Speaking as one with age (68) on his side, Belle Vue railway station was well situated for visitors the Belle Vue Zoological Gardens (I remember they had a TIGON, a cross between a male tiger and a female lion) and the associated Amusement Park and Dance Hall up to the period in the 1980's when the whole site was closed. The railway station was far busier than at present in the 1950s onwards when I travelled there.

 

[DownSouth]

The answer to these questions, in the majority of cases is 'no'. But this thread isn't about rail v car, it's more a case of understanding why some stations have more passenger usage than others.

If you refuse to look into rail v car on a local level, you cannot possibly hope to gain a full understanding of why some stations have comparatively low usage.

It's been said numerous times, that public transport cannot replace the car!

That is a lie at worst, and only partially true at best. Just because something has been said doesn't mean it is true!

Good public transport systems with 365 day service can replace nearly all car usage, and if they complement good cycling infrastructure it should be possible for a very meaningful number of people to not require a car.

And yet passenger growth is running at about 6% per year with the result that as of now, rail passeneger numbers are at an all time high. Clearly the industry is getting it right .....

That's all very nice, but national statistics are not going to be of any use when trying to work out why people are not using a station where the so-called "service" goes where nobody wants it, is too expensive and doesn't operate two days a week.

 

[Starmill]

If you refuse to look into rail v car on a local level, you cannot possibly hope to gain a full understanding of why some stations have comparatively low usage.


That is a lie at worst, and only partially true at best. Just because something has been said doesn't mean it is true!

I think perhaps what you're trying to say here, in a more diplomatic way is, we shouldn't simply assume that the car has won 'the battle of the modes' just yet. However there is no doubt in my mind that it has a dominance in society that it will take a generation to undo and then only if relevant public transport options, as you say, are explored thoroughly.

 

[edwin_m]

Rail has a good market share for flows like commuting into major cities and long distance travel between city centres. The car is often better for journeys to/from suburbs and rural areas where the low population density makes it difficult to provide good public transport and also means there is relatively little traffic congestion so it is easier to drive around.

Probably the only way of expanding rail's share significantly in those other markets would be if car travel became very much more costly/difficult, so the shift to public transport make better bus services viable as they were in the 1950s. This might be the result of government action (unlikely due to public opinion) or something like a big spike in oil prices. It would also be necessary to have much better integration of bus and rail so the integrated network was able to cope with extra demand.

Does anyone know what the modal shares are in Germany and Swizerland where they have the integrated transport element but base their policies on free choice rather than discouragement of car use?

 

[Taunton]

It's notable that the No 1 means of transport within London is - the car. It is only for travel to the central area of the city that public transport takes over as the majority mode, and by no means all journeys are to the centre. Boroughs like Bromley, Sutton or Kingston have no Underground, and rail services little different to provincial city suburbs. Few staff working at Heathrow find public transport convenient.

 

[orpine]

And yet passenger growth is running at about 6% per year with the result that as of now, rail passeneger numbers are at an all time high. Clearly the industry is getting it right .....

Other factors likely compound this though - like fuel prices becoming absurdly high. Trains may be stupidly expensive for some trips, but for others they can be very cheap.

 

[Greenback]

That is a lie at worst, and only partially true at best. Just because something has been said doesn't mean it is true!

Sorry, it is true. But I should quantify that by saying 'at the moment'. The reason is that society has become far tooc ard ependent, and it is impossible for the vast majority of people in the UK to live the way they live their lives without one. Whether it is used for weekly shopping trips at the altar of Tesco's, ferrying children around to sports, piano lessons, or school, working in out of town offices, working in the community, visiting friends/relatives who have no access to any public transport at all, or one hundred and one other reasons, a car is seen as indispensable by very large numbers of our citizens.

I don't like it, but uinfortunately it is the way that our society has developed in the last 50-60 years. Centralisation of services, the expectation of consumers to be able to travel where they want and when they want using individual methods of transport, and the way public transport is run all come together to eman that there is no substitute for the car for most people.

I firmly believe that this will change, but that society will have to readjust itself to travelling less, rather than public transport being provided to enable every individual to undertake the same sorts of journeys as they currently do. And employees would not have to work in locations not served by public transport.

Good public transport systems with 365 day service can replace nearly all car usage, and if they complement good cycling infrastructure it should be possible for a very meaningful number of people to not require a car.

Even you say 'nearly all'! But let's be honest, while it might be an aspiration to get meaningful numbers of people cycling, that is going to take a couple of generations at least. People like myself, who haven't ridden a bik in 30 years or more, ar enot going to abandon their car and take to two wheels unless they are forced to by economic necessity.

As for 365 day good public transport systems, it is true to say that they can replace many car journeys, there will have to be a huge change in outlook to introduce the sort of bus system that we have in London and major cities into rural areas, small towns and villages. It certainly isn't likely to be happening any time soon, and even if it did, what sort of frequency levels persuade people that public transport, which won;t take them directly from door to door, is better than what they can do in their car? People will still choose to drive unless they can see a very persuasive reason not to.

 

[Taunton]

You have to accept that for the majority of the population (although not the posters here) they have no inherent interest in public transport systems, and happily would leave it altogether if not forced onto it. In outer London and the Home Counties there are many who will never use the train apart from when they need to go into Central London, and will go from one year to the next without setting foot in a bus.

The rail industry hasn't helped itself by pricing decide-on-the day fares way above inflation (you don't have to book way in advance with your car), and providing less and less seats with each generation of rolling stock. Many of the passengers honestly don't want to be there.

 

[Chrisgr31]

As for 365 day good public transport systems, it is true to say that they can replace many car journeys, there will have to be a huge change in outlook to introduce the sort of bus system that we have in London and major cities into rural areas, small towns and villages. It certainly isn't likely to be happening any time soon, and even if it did, what sort of frequency levels persuade people that public transport, which won;t take them directly from door to door, is better than what they can do in their car? People will still choose to drive unless they can see a very persuasive reason not to.

Its interesting because I live a 5 minute drive or 25 minute walk from the station. Its downhill to the station which means it uphill home, therefore I am not keen on walking home. In addition walking home always seem to be a greater waste of time than walking to the station, possibly because if I want a parking space near the station I have to leave at the same time as I do when walking, but on the way home even taking in to account the walk to the car, I am home 15 minutes earlier if I drive home.

So my preferred option is to drive to the station, that way I know I can drive home, doesn't matter if the train is late etc.

My second choice option is to walk to the station and then get picked up by my wife.

In the meantime there is a bus which would be a viable option however there are several issues with the bus: -

• You have no idea if it is on the way or already been
• Its only £1 cheaper than taxi and does not take me to my door
• Different operators do the morning and evening service so you can't buy a return ticket
• If the train is late it usually doesn't wait

Now the bus is subsidised by the local Council, and the main potential source of passengers is the train. It doesn't seem rocket science but if the bus is subsidised then have very cheap fares, make sure it waits for the train when the train is late (its a round town service and has plenty of time to run late), enable one to buy return tickets etc.

However apparently these simple iptions to encourage people to use it don't happen and therefore it runs round empty. Soon it will be cancelled due to lack of use. Ironically the trains used to be like this, they required a change of train on all journeys, old rolling stock, poor timekeeping etc but Southern have dramatically improved the service so all peak hour trains are packed. Shame the buses aren't run by Southern!

 

[Greenback]

However apparently these simple iptions to encourage people to use it don't happen and therefore it runs round empty. Soon it will be cancelled due to lack of use. Ironically the trains used to be like this, they required a change of train on all journeys, old rolling stock, poor timekeeping etc but Southern have dramatically improved the service so all peak hour trains are packed. Shame the buses aren't run by Southern!

You have made a good illustration of some of the obstacles that need to be overcome before public transport is seen as anywhere near as convenient as the car - lack of integration, comfort, and reliability to name but a few.

While some people take trains by choice, whether it be for economic, environmental or social reasons (or even lack of any alternative), looking at public transport as a whole means that a journey from door to door is, in general, complicated, time consuming and expensive, if it is possible at all.

To try and keep the discussion relevant to the topic, one of my favourite stations is Gowerton. But the rail connections there are only useful for travelling to certain parts of Swansea. You cannot get to any of the hospitals in the city, for example, without transferring to a bus, and the journey times threfore compare very unfavourably with just driving your car.

The train passes within a few hundred metres of the Liberty Stadium, but a rail traveller heading for a match or just wanting to go to shopping in the retial park there, has no option but to go into Swanse aand back out again on a bus. Or, alternatively, walk it in about 30 minutes!

Gowerton is well sited for many local residents, but a comparable station in another similarly sized town or city might have more usage per head of population simply because the trains may better serve hospitals, sports stadia and other destinations of interest.

 

[Moonshot]

To further re inforce the above post, you only have to look at Manchesters excellent Metrolink system which is extremely popular. The line that runs past my house ( which has been fully open for 3 months now ) is attracting car users by the hundreds.

 

[Taunton]

Now the bus is subsidised by the local Council, and the main potential source of passengers is the train. It doesn't seem rocket science but if the bus is subsidised then have very cheap fares, make sure it waits for the train when the train is late (its a round town service and has plenty of time to run late), enable one to buy return tickets etc.

The rail industry can't even get their own connections organised, what chance different modes.

I've written here before about how, travelling London Bridge to Reigate, the FGW connection on the last lap from Redhill is happily sent on its way while passengers are walking through the subway from the London Bridge train a few minutes late. Likewise at Ascot the connection to Camberley happily slams its doors on those trying to run across from the Waterloo train when it is 10 minutes late (which is the standard lateness amount when the fast lines from Clapham to Barnes have some issue), despite being the same operator and just about all the potential passengers being from the connection, hardly anyone starts locally. Apparently punctual to the second starts on an obscure branch are more important than any passengers. If the industry can't sort this out after more than 150 years at the job then what chance proper integration.

 

[Bevan Price]

Network Rail recently published an interesting document Long Term Planning Process: Regional Urban Market Study. This provides an overview of the commuter market into each of the major English cities excluding London on each regional rail line.

It shows for each line the number of trips from each station to the city, the total number of trips from that station and the number of people who live within 1km, 3km and 5km of the station. In doing so it shows some interesting anomalies. To take an example Belle View, Reddish North and Ryder Brow all have 11-12,000 people living within 1km of them and each is 3-4 miles from Manchester. Yet the number of people travelling to Manchester from each is 10, 109 and 22 thousand respectively.

A number of thoughts struck me - one why such a huge difference between these stations - and there are lots of other examples out there and the other there still seems huge potential to greatly increase rail travel if the number of trips per person within station catchments areas was to increase to the level of best performing station.

Outside the peak hours, Belle Vue has one train every 2 hours. Ryder Brow one per hour, Reddish North 2 trains per hour. Even at peak hours, Reddish North has the most trains per hour. Hardly surprising that Belle Vue has the lowest usage and Reddish North is the busiest.

 

[edwin_m]

Outside the peak hours, Belle Vue has one train every 2 hours. Ryder Brow one per hour, Reddish North 2 trains per hour. Even at peak hours, Reddish North has the most trains per hour. Hardly surprising that Belle Vue has the lowest usage and Reddish North is the busiest.

Seeing as the same trains pass all three stations, all three could have two trains per hour if that was justified. The difference in frequency of stops is a consequence of the patronage levels rather than the cause of it.

 

[fowler9]

Seeing as the same trains pass all three stations, all three could have two trains per hour if that was justified. The difference in frequency of stops is a consequence of the patronage levels rather than the cause of it.

My local station, West Allerton sees fairly low passenger numbers. We live in an area of high car ownership and people tend to drive despite the fact that for your average trip in to the city centre is much quicker and also cheaper than driving or getting the bus for a one off return journey. An additional problem for increasing rail usage is the number of people who need for example two working parents to pay for the house and thus the school run in the car, the number of people who now work in obscure places away from population centres with poor public transport and the number of people who have to shop in obscure places with poor public transport.