Good and bad bus stations.

[radamfi]

Southdown had a policy of NOT building bus stations except in a few key locations of which Chichester was one (as were Lewes and Haywards Heath) because of the cost of having them!!

It seems to be an unwritten rule in British bus culture to have standalone bus stations. It is especially ironic given that this culture tries to deter people from changing as much as possible through poor fare integration and badly co-ordinated services. Given how scarce money for buses, it is especially galling that Britain has so spent so much money on elaborate facilities. In fact, the UK may be a world leader in bus stations. How about spending money on actual services?

It may actually be the case that the more standalone bus stations you have, the lower patronage you get, when you consider that the UK has particularly low patronage compared to mainland Europe, where bus stations are not a big thing. Even if you look within the UK, some of the towns noted for good services mainly use bus stations for longer distance services only.

London is more like continental Europe in this respect. Bus stations are not that numerous and tend to be at Tube or rail stations, and are not usually palaces for buses.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It seems to be an unwritten rule in British bus culture to have standalone bus stations. It is especially ironic given that this culture tries to deter people from changing as much as possible through poor fare integration and badly co-ordinated services. Given how scarce money for buses, it is especially galling that Britain has so spent so much money on elaborate facilities. In fact, the UK may be a world leader in bus stations. How about spending money on actual services?

It may actually be the case that the more standalone bus stations you have, the lower patronage you get, when you consider that the UK has particularly low patronage compared to mainland Europe, where bus stations are not a big thing. Even if you look within the UK, some of the towns noted for good services mainly use bus stations for longer distance services only.

London is more like continental Europe in this respect. Bus stations are not that numerous and tend to be at Tube or rail stations, and are not usually palaces for buses.

It all depends on what you want from a bus station? Even in the UK, I can think of many places where only inter-urban/longer distance services use bus stations whereas local services use town centre stops. However, is it a place to park a bus and have a few shelters.... or is it something more?

The facts are that UK rail stations are invariably in the wrong place; a consequence of Victorian builders building on the edge of towns for financial or topographical reasons. In addition, the whole ethos of town planning has led to the situation we have.

Then there's the rub.... what is the main traffic objective for passengers? Is it the rail station, or the centre of town? Where both co-exist, then it should make sense for a transport interchange. However, usually they don't and therefore the default place for a bus station is where most people go and would seek to benefit.

I do take the point that there are areas (esp. in London's Commuterland) where rail stations are major traffic objectives in their own right. However, often elsewhere the additional vehicles required to run across a town centre to a peripheral rail station aren't rewarded by sufficient additional revenue (and never would be).

If you pick a place....Exeter. The main rail station is about a mile from the city centre. A few routes divert etc to serve it but the 20 mins it adds into each diagram compared to the likely revenue just kills it.

BTW - I've seen some bloody awful bus stations/waiting areas on the continent. They don't get it right 100% of the time either.

 

[radamfi]

I'm not really talking about the age old argument about whether buses should go to the railway station. The British think they shouldn't, everyone else think they should. But I am really talking about the necessity of having a bus station in the town centre, irrespective of whether there is one at the station. I'm arguing that they are far from required, and they may even be detrimental. Having a bus station implies there is only one stop in the whole town worth going to. Bus stations ought to be a place to change, but we don't do changing in Britain, so it doesn't make sense.

 

[matchmaker]

I can still remember the old Glasgow bus stations - Waterloo Street, Buchanan Street and Killermont street. All dingy horrible holes.



Anderson Bus Station ( which replaced Waterloo Street) was in hooker land.

Buchanan Bus Station is excellent. Also a good word for Stirling. Waiting room, cafe, easy access to the rail station and city centre.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Stourbridge is good in that it has a bus station intergrated into the rail network (Stourbridge Town) yet on the other hand it is bad because it has stands on curves, only one layover stop and fee charging toilets which close at 1800hrs

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'm not really talking about the age old argument about whether buses should go to the railway station. The British think they shouldn't, everyone else think they should. But I am really talking about the necessity of having a bus station in the town centre, irrespective of whether there is one at the station. I'm arguing that they are far from required, and they may even be detrimental. Having a bus station implies there is only one stop in the whole town worth going to. Bus stations ought to be a place to change, but we don't do changing in Britain, so it doesn't make sense.

You're starting off from a misapprehension....

The primary objective for a bus station is not about interchanging. The dictionary definition - a place in a town where buses arrive and depart.

The reasons why bus stations exist (and especially used for out of town, longer distance services) are....

• Ability to park up vehicles on layover close to the centre of town (rather than blocking roadside stops)
• Long distance routes generally operate at a lower frequency so it avoids bunching of passengers at stops (as higher frequency services will flush patronage through)
• Lower frequency routes and the increased passenger dwell time means an increased need for waiting and associated facilities
• In larger towns, provides a central common focal point (not withstanding that buses will then serve other stops in the town centre on the way in/out)

In some towns, bus stations aren't pretty superfluous. Patronage and layover is of such a magnitude that roadside stops would probably suffice (e.g. Colne, Monmouth). However, in some places like Darlington, services are strewn across the town centre.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can still remember the old Glasgow bus stations - Waterloo Street, Buchanan Street and Killermont street. All dingy horrible holes.

View attachment 21575

Anderson Bus Station ( which replaced Waterloo Street) was in hooker land.

Buchanan Bus Station is excellent. Also a good word for Stirling. Waiting room, cafe, easy access to the rail station and city centre.

Anderston is STILL HookerLand. I was in Glasgow a couple of years ago, making my way from an PR bash and charity night (in my dinner jacket) and was heading back to my hotel (Hilton?) and a lady enquired as to my views on small business..... I respectfully declined hock:

 

[Stonesourscotty]

Worst Bus Station that i regularly use is Skelmersdale Lot's of Smackheads, buses have to reverse,no seating, doleys everywhere begging, bitterly cold outside (exposed), no Information available, no amenities (Toilets etc) and an annoying kids ride that beeps every two minutes... by far Skelmersdale's worst amenity and that says something

 

[radamfi]

You're starting off from a misapprehension....

The primary objective for a bus station is not about interchanging.

Maybe in Britain that's the case, but not generally.

Of course, outside the UK, most bus stations are at rail stations, so inevitably, people would be changing between the bus/trams/trains at that location. Also, with best practice, the buses are right outside the front door of the station. So you don't need an elaborate structure as the rail station already has great facilities. That isn't understood in the UK, as when bus stations are built next to rail stations in the UK, they are still normally built as independent buildings. Stupidly, the rail station and bus station can often be separated by busy roads in the UK, making it far less attractive, even when they are supposedly an 'interchange'.

When you have the bus station as a separate facility, you have to worry about keeping the building in tip-top condition, as a decaying and dirty bus station is particularly unattractive compared to a decent street bus stop. Bus stations also attract a disproportionate amount of anti-social behaviour.

Outside the UK, bus stations also can be built in remote but strategic locations, for example near to motorway junctions, to enable cleverly timed and co-ordinated interchange.

Unless you want to travel to/from the particular point in the town where the bus station is, it is irrelevant to you. It is better to have a consistently high standard of stop across the region. In Britain it is often the reverse. You may have a gold plated bus stop at one point in the town (the bus station in the town centre) but poor stops with no information everywhere else.

This discussion harks back to our early debates where you submitted that buses are only suitable for a very limited range of trips, basically only to/from the town centre. Bus companies in the UK have long resigned themselves to this. Outside the UK, because of a greater acceptance and ease of changing, public transport can cater for a much wider variety of trips.

If it was a good idea to have a town centre bus station, apart from the rail station, that would be the norm throughout Europe. But when it is only really the case in the UK, can it be that Britain has got it right when everyone else has got it wrong? Unlikely.

I can see why bus stations are useful for long distance services. Indeed, outside the UK, often the only bus stations that are not at rail stations are for long distance, typically international, coach services.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Maybe in Britain that's the case, but not generally.

Of course, outside the UK, most bus stations are at rail stations, so inevitably, people would be changing between the bus/trams/trains at that location. Also, with best practice, the buses are right outside the front door of the station. So you don't need an elaborate structure as the rail station already has great facilities. That isn't understood in the UK, as when bus stations are built next to rail stations in the UK, they are still normally built as independent buildings. Stupidly, the rail station and bus station can often separated by busy roads in the UK, making it far less attractive, even when they are supposedly an 'interchange'.

When you have the bus station as a separate facility, you have to worry about keeping the building in tip-top condition, as a decaying and dirty bus station is particularly unattractive compared to a decent street bus stop. Bus stations also attract a disproportionate amount of anti-social behaviour.

Outside the UK, bus stations also can be built in remote but strategic locations, for example near to motorway junctions, to enable cleverly timed and co-ordinated interchange.

Unless you want to travel to/from the particular point in the town where the bus station is, it is irrelevant to you. It is better to have a consistently high standard of stop across the region. In Britain it is often the reverse. You may have a gold plated bus stop at one point in the town (the bus station in the town centre) but poor stops with no information everywhere else.

This discussion harks back to our early debates where you submitted that buses are only suitable for a very limited range of trips, basically only to/from the town centre. Bus companies in the UK have long resigned themselves to this. Outside the UK, because of a greater acceptance and ease of changing, public transport can cater for a much wider variety of trips.

If it was a good idea to have a town centre bus station, apart from the rail station, that would be the norm throughout Europe. But when it is only really the case in the UK, can it be that Britain has got it right when everyone else has got it wrong? Unlikely.

I can see why bus stations are useful for long distance services. Indeed, outside the UK, often the only bus stations that are not at rail stations are for long distance, typically international, coach services.

Sorry but you're wrong. The PRIMARY AIM is to provide a facility for passengers to board/exit; same as a rail station, coach station etc etc. The ability to interchange from one mode to another is a byproduct NOT the PRIMARY AIM.

Frankly, I truly honour how seemingly irrespective of the subject, you seemlessly drag it back to the same hobby horses despite the actual subject. Quite simply, there are a raft of reasons historically why our transport infrastructure is as it is, from cultural reasons through to early adopters/pioneers, to removing large amounts of railway infrastructure, and even through to public planning regulations and the amount of people per km.

Stop being so simplistic - it isn't because if it were, I wouldn't have wasted my time getting a degree. To quote the late great George Burns "Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxicabs and cutting hair"

 

[radamfi]

Stop being so simplistic - it isn't because if it were, I wouldn't have wasted my time getting a degree.

I got a Master's degree in Transport Engineering and Planning 20 years ago. OK, it got me a job, but it was basically a waste of time apart from that. I did it in the UK so it taught the British way of doing things. There was no mention of the importance of good interchange if you want high patronage. Most of what I know comes from observation of first UK, and then continental operations and studying of timetables and route maps.

There is, however, recent academic literature on the subject, such as

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transport-Suburbia-Beyond-Automobile-Age/dp/1844077403

which was recommended to me by a friend a few years ago. He leant me the book so I didn't pay for it, but I would say it is worth the £45 price tag and should be compulsory reading for anyone studying transport.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I got a Master's degree in Transport Engineering and Planning 20 years ago. OK, it got me a job, but it was basically a waste of time apart from that. I did it in the UK so it taught the British way of doing things. There was no mention of the importance of good interchange if you want high patronage. Most of what I know comes from observation of first UK, and then continental operations and studying of timetables and route maps.

There is, however, recent academic literature on the subject, such as

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transport-Suburbia-Beyond-Automobile-Age/dp/1844077403

which was recommended to me by a friend a few years ago. He leant me the book so I didn't pay for it, but I would say it is worth the £45 price tag and should be compulsory reading for anyone studying transport.

Without wishing indulge in a p*ssing contest, I've got the HND (Business and Transport), BA (Logistics) and just shy of 20 years experience working in Public Transport, Freight Transport, Logistics and Supply Chain for large multinationals. I agree that theoretical studying is not a substitute for understanding the actualities of working "on the job".

As I say, the PRIMARY AIM of a bus station is to allow the boarding and depositing of passengers. Only if modal shift becomes the objective does it make sense to have it other than in the main traffic destination is the town centre. I don't wish to pursue this further on the whys and wherefores as a) you said you didn't want to get on the subject of having buses serving train stations and b) we've covered this before and yes, if you constrain people to having to interchange then the instance will undoubtedly be higher.

However, it would be churlish not to capitalise on the ability to combine facilities where appropriate and allow easier transition. That said, there are instances where there are examples of good and bad within a relatively small area - some interesting variations in the West Midlands. For instance...

• Stourbridge is a good bus station, not perfect but modern and is adjacent to the train station and the town centre
• Solihull doesn't have a bus station but the rail station is close by and buses terminate there after a simple loop through the adjacent town centre
• Cradley Heath has a bus station outside the train station consisting of some modern if very modest bus shelters - town centre traffic has to just use roadside stops (not a great place to wait)
• Bilston - an older version of Stourbridge with simple link to town centre and Metro
• Wednesbury - the Metrolink stations are both 10-15 mins walk from the town centre. The pedestrianisation of the town and the road network make a modern town centre bus station much more sensible for the vast majority of passengers

Some of the great near misses of integration are Bath - almost next door but not quite and Sunderland - integrated transport but the bus station is terrible.

Where it makes sense, integrate, but don't get caught up in some dogmatic straightjacket where the minority dictates to the majority. Anyway, I missed the bit where Gideon was giving the bus industry a helping hand in the budget so it's all rather academic..

 

[Northants79]

Best and worst - Greyfriars in Northampton - ugly as anything but actually functioned unlike its tiny replacement.

 

[fairysdad]

Bournemouth's bus station* integrates well with the railway station, as it's the first thing you see when you step out of the station. The only problem with it is that if you're a visitor to the town, you're most likely wanting the town centre or the seafront, and the buses to there have two small stops tucked away almost underneath the bridge carrying the bypass - and also the location of the only 'travel information' board, while all the bus stops laid out in front of you are for various suburbs of the town which you, as a visitor, probably wouldn't have heard of and are all going in the wrong direction and don't have any real-time information about services.

* I do realise that, for some reason, Bournemouth doesn't have a bus station; quite why the big place where a vast majority of Bournemouth's buses stop isn't called a bus station is beyond my understanding... if it looks like a bus station, and acts like a bus station, and quacks like a bus station, then it's a bus station!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Bournemouth's bus station* integrates well with the railway station, as it's the first thing you see when you step out of the station. The only problem with it is that if you're a visitor to the town, you're most likely wanting the town centre or the seafront, and the buses to there have two small stops tucked away almost underneath the bridge carrying the bypass - and also the location of the only 'travel information' board, while all the bus stops laid out in front of you are for various suburbs of the town which you, as a visitor, probably wouldn't have heard of and are all going in the wrong direction and don't have any real-time information about services.

* I do realise that, for some reason, Bournemouth doesn't have a bus station; quite why the big place where a vast majority of Bournemouth's buses stop isn't called a bus station is beyond my understanding... if it looks like a bus station, and acts like a bus station, and quacks like a bus station, then it's a bus station!

The reason Bournemouth doesn't have a bus station is that it burned down in 1976 and the temporary interchanges that were set up worked well enough for the council to not bother rebuilding it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I got a Master's degree in Transport Engineering and Planning 20 years ago. OK, it got me a job, but it was basically a waste of time apart from that. I did it in the UK so it taught the British way of doing things. There was no mention of the importance of good interchange if you want high patronage. Most of what I know comes from observation of first UK, and then continental operations and studying of timetables and route maps.

so your view is that because you have a Master's degree in the subject that automatically makes you the most knowledgable on the subject.... judging by the tone of your post even more knowledgeable than your tutors. Out of interest did you get your degree from the ABCoPT (Andrew Braddock College of Public Transport)?

I DON'T have a degree, but have always been in public transport at the sharp end ie on the road. Truth is that the majority of people don't like changing unless ABSOLUTELY neccessary... no matter how good the facilities are.

As to "the continent always does it better" really? There is a lot of nonsense spouted about how our European neighbours are more pro public transport.

Maybe the politicians are more pro public transport but I've seen no evidence of the population taking any notice. I spent Xmas in Brussels and despite a full sunday service running on Christmas Day on buses trams and trains the roads were still gridlocked.

I've just come back from Paris where I spent 3 days sitting in traffic jams despite the wonderful public transport.

Guess what? In both places public transport was running round almost totally empty.... certainly RAPT must look with envy at the full buses and trains running round london!

 

[fairysdad]

The reason Bournemouth doesn't have a bus station is that it burned down in 1976 and the temporary interchanges that were set up worked well enough for the council to not bother rebuilding it.

My point there was that although for all intents and purposes, there is a bus station in Bournemouth, people, including the local council, seem to not call it such. I know that there used to be a 'proper' bus station in the town, subsequently replaced by the myriad bus stops on Gervis Place, and could probably have done with a new one being built on the old Exeter Road car park instead of whatever they're putting there instead, but to claim that there is no bus station in the town when there is one up by the railway station (even if it's not central and a good mile away from the main town centre and the seafront) does seem a little odd.

 

[Busaholic]

The reason Bournemouth doesn't have a bus station is that it burned down in 1976 and the temporary interchanges that were set up worked well enough for the council to not bother rebuilding it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


so your view is that because you have a Master's degree in the subject that automatically makes you the most knowledgable on the subject.... judging by the tone of your post even more knowledgeable than your tutors. Out of interest did you get your degree from the ABCoPT (Andrew Braddock College of Public Transport)?

I DON'T have a degree, but have always been in public transport at the sharp end ie on the road. Truth is that the majority of people don't like changing unless ABSOLUTELY neccessary... no matter how good the facilities are.

As to "the continent always does it better" really? There is a lot of nonsense spouted about how our European neighbours are more pro public transport.

Maybe the politicians are more pro public transport but I've seen no evidence of the population taking any notice. I spent Xmas in Brussels and despite a full sunday service running on Christmas Day on buses trams and trains the roads were still gridlocked.

I've just come back from Paris where I spent 3 days sitting in traffic jams despite the wonderful public transport.

Guess what? In both places public transport was running round almost totally empty.... certainly RAPT must look with envy at the full buses and trains running round london!

Can't agree with that last sentence. The bus network is not nearly as well developed as London's, but then Paris is a much smaller city, and it can often be quicker to walk than take a bus, hence buses are not well patronised The trains and metro are not usually jammed to capacity, but that is because Paris had and has a continuous programme of improvement and line openings rather than waiting for capacity to be reached then talk and argue about new schemes before starting something ten years later which is outdated and inadequate before it begins.

Another factor in Paris is that the metro is not priced as a 'premium' service and that stations are, on average, much closer together than in London, so usage is much more class and age mixed.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Can't agree with that last sentence. The bus network is not nearly as well developed as London's, but then Paris is a much smaller city, and it can often be quicker to walk than take a bus, hence buses are not well patronised The trains and metro are not usually jammed to capacity, but that is because Paris had and has a continuous programme of improvement and line openings rather than waiting for capacity to be reached then talk and argue about new schemes before starting something ten years later which is outdated and inadequate before it begins.

Another factor in Paris is that the metro is not priced as a 'premium' service and that stations are, on average, much closer together than in London, so usage is much more class and age mixed.

perhaps the reason that it is quicker to walk than to take the bus is because the roads are so jammed with cars? The only efficient way I saw of getting round Paris was motorbike... but then they do have the advantage of using pavements as well as roads lol. Seriously though my observation still stands that the majority of Parisiens use private rather than public transport... the same for Brussels
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My point there was that although for all intents and purposes, there is a bus station in Bournemouth, people, including the local council, seem to not call it such. I know that there used to be a 'proper' bus station in the town, subsequently replaced by the myriad bus stops on Gervis Place, and could probably have done with a new one being built on the old Exeter Road car park instead of whatever they're putting there instead, but to claim that there is no bus station in the town when there is one up by the railway station (even if it's not central and a good mile away from the main town centre and the seafront) does seem a little odd.

I did get the point you made... perhaps the reason why "the Triangle" isn't called a bus station is the same one as why harlow's town centre is never referred to as such... it is known as "The High"... ie local preference.

 

[fairysdad]

I did get the point you made... perhaps the reason why "the Triangle" isn't called a bus station is the same one as why harlow's town centre is never referred to as such... it is known as "The High"... ie local preference.

I'm not talking about either Gervis Place or the Triangle as being Bomo's bus station - I'm talking about the place nestled between the railway station and Asda.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I'm not talking about either Gervis Place or the Triangle as being Bomo's bus station - I'm talking about the place nestled between the railway station and Asda.

My point still stands though... local solutions for local situations... Luton Interchange, Reading Stations, Bournemouth Asda.

Probably the reasons why they all lack Bus station in the title are:

a) they are a collection of on street stops
b) because they are next to places which provide all the facilities needed by a bus station.

As has been stated by others in this thread bus stations aren't neccessary in all circumstances and indeed can be in very inconvenient places for the majority of passengers rendering them totally superfluous and an expensive millstone round the finances of the local bus network.

And of course a bus station isn't neccessarily (in fact probably usually isn't) the nicest of places to wait for a bus (hence the title of this thread)

A superb example of the futility of "bus station at any cost" was Milton Keynes.

It was deemed neccessary to have a bus station so one was built. The problem was that the rail station is over a mile from the main shopping centre... so where do you put it? Milton Keynes' solution was to put it about a 100yd walk from the rail station when most bus users would be travelling to the shopping centre...

Next step was to design the bus station and instead of building something practical it was decided to build something that might win a few design awards... To say that was a good idea would be a lie... in fact the resulting edifice has been likened to Lenin's mausoleum on more than one occasion.

Guess what? the whole venture was a total flop and eventually the bus companies pulled out and moved their services to roadside stops immediately outside the rail station. If it weren't for the nightclub occupying the top floor of the old bus station the building would be totally derelict.

Think yourself lucky that Bournemouth had the sense to recognise the wisdom of "if it ain't broke don't fix it"

 

[Robertj21a]

My point still stands though... local solutions for local situations... Luton Interchange, Reading Stations, Bournemouth Asda.

Probably the reasons why they all lack Bus station in the title are:

a) they are a collection of on street stops
b) because they are next to places which provide all the facilities needed by a bus station.

As has been stated by others in this thread bus stations aren't neccessary in all circumstances and indeed can be in very inconvenient places for the majority of passengers rendering them totally superfluous and an expensive millstone round the finances of the local bus network.

And of course a bus station isn't neccessarily (in fact probably usually isn't) the nicest of places to wait for a bus (hence the title of this thread)

A superb example of the futility of "bus station at any cost" was Milton Keynes.

It was deemed neccessary to have a bus station so one was built. The problem was that the rail station is over a mile from the main shopping centre... so where do you put it? Milton Keynes' solution was to put it about a 100yd walk from the rail station when most bus users would be travelling to the shopping centre...

Next step was to design the bus station and instead of building something practical it was decided to build something that might win a few design awards... To say that was a good idea would be a lie... in fact the resulting edifice has been likened to Lenin's mausoleum on more than one occasion.

Guess what? the whole venture was a total flop and eventually the bus companies pulled out and moved their services to roadside stops immediately outside the rail station. If it weren't for the nightclub occupying the top floor of the old bus station the building would be totally derelict.

Think yourself lucky that Bournemouth had the sense to recognise the wisdom of "if it ain't broke don't fix it"

I've often wondered why they haven't demolished that bus station in Milton Keynes. The site must warrant a more useful role in that part of the town.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sorry to have entered this thread so late, but I will say that a few years ago when I visited Crewe bus station which was complete with stance dividers resemblant of rusting scaffolding poles, I would, on that memory, cast my vote for Crewe as a bus station with a very poor image to convey to intending omnibus passengers.

Of course, I would be delighted to hear of any upgrading that has taken place there since that time.

 

[bussnapperwm]

I've often wondered why they haven't demolished that bus station in Milton Keynes. The site must warrant a more useful role in that part of the town.

Because it's listed?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Sorry to have entered this thread so late, but I will say that a few years ago when I visited Crewe bus station which was complete with stance dividers resemblant of rusting scaffolding poles, I would, on that memory, cast my vote for Crewe as a bus station with a very poor image to convey to intending omnibus passengers.

Of course, I would be delighted to hear of any upgrading that has taken place there since that time.

Crewe is pretty awful. Of course, the whole site is earmarked for redevelopment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because it's listed?

Nope, don't think it is. TL is correct and Central MK now has what is really a bus station in town; that's where the travel shop/kiosk is and where out of town services often terminate.

 

[radamfi]

so your view is that because you have a Master's degree in the subject that automatically makes you the most knowledgable on the subject.... judging by the tone of your post even more knowledgeable than your tutors. Out of interest did you get your degree from the ABCoPT (Andrew Braddock College of Public Transport)?

I DON'T have a degree, but have always been in public transport at the sharp end ie on the road. Truth is that the majority of people don't like changing unless ABSOLUTELY neccessary... no matter how good the facilities are.

As to "the continent always does it better" really? There is a lot of nonsense spouted about how our European neighbours are more pro public transport.

Maybe the politicians are more pro public transport but I've seen no evidence of the population taking any notice. I spent Xmas in Brussels and despite a full sunday service running on Christmas Day on buses trams and trains the roads were still gridlocked.

I've just come back from Paris where I spent 3 days sitting in traffic jams despite the wonderful public transport.

Guess what? In both places public transport was running round almost totally empty.... certainly RAPT must look with envy at the full buses and trains running round london!

I wasn't the one who was implying that my qualifications meant something. In fact, I said they were irrelevant.

In general, buses in France aren't that great and I never use France in my examples. There's no need to mention France when Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany are so much better. I think France is the only country where buses don't leave the same minutes past each hour and buses often finish early in the evening. However, fares are usually cheap and integration is usually good.

Certainly, whilst world class public transport exists in much of Europe, traffic jams still exist. Even if you get good public transport/cycling modal share for trips within a city, generally public transport/cycling cannot compete with the car for trips out of town as the journey time difference is too great. Most countries have a policy of improving inter-urban roads and motorways at the same time as improving public transport, which doesn't cut traffic. Even Switzerland suffers from motorway congestion despite having such a comprehensive rail network.

Having said that, if you want to do without a car, the Netherlands and Switzerland are good places to live.

I don't think I've explained for a while why the issue of interchange is so important. The book I quoted above explains this very well. Of course, you can't beat a direct journey, but the fact is that direct journeys can only serve a very small number of places from any particular location. So it is hard to get high modal share with a policy that makes interchange very unattractive.

For example, if you look at the route map for Zurich, which isn't a huge city:

http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/content...n/Fahrplan/liniennetzplaene/Stadt Zuerich.pdf

you can see that lines criss-cross all over the place. In a city of that size in the UK, most if not all routes would go to the city centre. In the UK, if you are lucky you might get one or two orbital routes. The reason why Birmingham's Inner and Outer Circle have such legendary status is the fact that routes that don't go to the city centre are unusual in general.

In Zurich, they don't all go from the HB. Some go to different parts of the city centre and many don't go anywhere near the city centre. Not everywhere has a direct bus/tram to the city centre, but you can go from everywhere to everywhere reasonable quickly by changing somewhere. You don't pay extra to change so the cost doesn't enter the equation like it does in Britain.

In bigger cities like Rotterdam or Munich, buses only really play a small role in feeding into the suburban rail or metro system. That way you can maximise the benefit of the higher speed of rail with the flexibility of buses to get you into the nooks and crannies.

 

[duncombec]

The reason why Birmingham's Inner and Outer Circle have such legendary status is the fact that routes that don't go to the city centre are unusual in general.

Pardon?!?!

I think you'll find their legendary status was because until the advent of route 360 in Coventry, they were the longest urban bus route in Europe.
The fact they don't go near the city centre probably has about as much effect on its popularity as how many wheelnuts the bus has.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I wasn't the one who was implying that my qualifications meant something. In fact, I said they were irrelevant.

In general, buses in France aren't that great and I never use France in my examples. There's no need to mention France when Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany are so much better. I think France is the only country where buses don't leave the same minutes past each hour and buses often finish early in the evening. However, fares are usually cheap and integration is usually good.

Certainly, whilst world class public transport exists in much of Europe, traffic jams still exist. Even if you get good public transport/cycling modal share for trips within a city, generally public transport/cycling cannot compete with the car for trips out of town as the journey time difference is too great. Most countries have a policy of improving inter-urban roads and motorways at the same time as improving public transport, which doesn't cut traffic. Even Switzerland suffers from motorway congestion despite having such a comprehensive rail network.

Having said that, if you want to do without a car, the Netherlands and Switzerland are good places to live.

I don't think I've explained for a while why the issue of interchange is so important. The book I quoted above explains this very well. Of course, you can't beat a direct journey, but the fact is that direct journeys can only serve a very small number of places from any particular location. So it is hard to get high modal share with a policy that makes interchange very unattractive.

For example, if you look at the route map for Zurich, which isn't a huge city:

http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/content...n/Fahrplan/liniennetzplaene/Stadt Zuerich.pdf

you can see that lines criss-cross all over the place. In a city of that size in the UK, most if not all routes would go to the city centre. In the UK, if you are lucky you might get one or two orbital routes. The reason why Birmingham's Inner and Outer Circle have such legendary status is the fact that routes that don't go to the city centre are unusual in general.

In Zurich, they don't all go from the HB. Some go to different parts of the city centre and many don't go anywhere near the city centre. Not everywhere has a direct bus/tram to the city centre, but you can go from everywhere to everywhere reasonable quickly by changing somewhere. You don't pay extra to change so the cost doesn't enter the equation like it does in Britain.

In bigger cities like Rotterdam or Munich, buses only really play a small role in feeding into the suburban rail or metro system. That way you can maximise the benefit of the higher speed of rail with the flexibility of buses to get you into the nooks and crannies.

That post sums up everything.

Selective examples - you say that the UK is alone in it's thinking but then admit that you discount France as it doesn't back up your argument.

Assigning attributes (erroneously) to something to back up an argument - The legendary status of the 11A/C is because of their length as another poster has stated, not because they don't serve the centre. Otherwise, why doesn't the Inner Circle 8A/C have similarly lengendary status?

Thread drift/hijack - This has gone from a thread about bus stations to the pet subject of modal integration.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In terms of the best bus stations, one of the best must still be Middlesbrough. The design is still modern, the council have kept it well maintained, and passengers are kept dry and warm in a single concourse rather than shivering on the streets.

Others that also seem fairly decent are Buchanan in Glasgow (as already noted), Bristol, Bath (though it's been skimped on and is slightly too small - a common issue when reliant on a retail development) and most of the ones in West Yorkshire.

Similarly, Lancashire has some good facilities but also some that are more "modest" e.g. Colne, Whalley, Earby. On my travels today, I saw one of the more pathetic ones in Nailsworth bus station!

 

[bussnapperwm]

Nope, don't think it is. TL is correct and Central MK now has what is really a bus station in town; that's where the travel shop/kiosk is and where out of town services often terminate.

The former Milton Keynes Central Bus Station got listed in 2014 according to the press...

http://www.mkweb.co.uk/Milton-Keyne...ish-Heritage/story-22274266-detail/story.html

As well as this website...

http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-1416117-former-bus-station-station-square-milto

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The former Milton Keynes Central Bus Station got listed in 2014 according to the press...

http://www.mkweb.co.uk/Milton-Keyne...ish-Heritage/story-22274266-detail/story.html

As well as this website...

http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-1416117-former-bus-station-station-square-milto

I must've missed that! Apologies - I genuinely didn't realise it was listed.

Good on English Heritage though one wonders why it was so difficult to get Preston listed but not CMK.....unless property development may have been a consideration in Lancashire

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I must've missed that! Apologies - I genuinely didn't realise it was listed.

Good on English Heritage though one wonders why it was so difficult to get Preston listed but not CMK.....unless property development may have been a consideration in Lancashire

Perhaps English Heritage thought CMK WAS Lenin's mausoleum for real? After all everyone else thought that's what it was modelled on... though I've got to say that I think sitting in Lenin's Mausoleum would be slightly less depressing than CMK bus stn lol

 

[Deerfold]

I think France is the only country where buses don't leave the same minutes past each hour and buses often finish early in the evening. However, fares are usually cheap and integration is usually good.

We visited friends in Bruges a couple of years ago. Despite having a bus every 10 minutes during the day, their last bus was around 2000.

You can see that lines criss-cross all over the place. In a city of that size in the UK, most if not all routes would go to the city centre. In the UK, if you are lucky you might get one or two orbital routes. The reason why Birmingham's Inner and Outer Circle have such legendary status is the fact that routes that don't go to the city centre are unusual in general.

In Zurich, they don't all go from the HB. Some go to different parts of the city centre and many don't go anywhere near the city centre. Not everywhere has a direct bus/tram to the city centre, but you can go from everywhere to everywhere reasonable quickly by changing somewhere. You don't pay extra to change so the cost doesn't enter the equation like it does in Britain.

In the 90s I used to regularly use the circular services in Leeds and Nottingham - in both the peak service could be as often as every 10 minutes and off peak at least half hourly.

But for some reason they're not popular - the Leeds one has ended up being split into two routes, one commercial and both only hourly (which connect badly). The Nottingham one became an hourly supported service before recently going half hourly and commercial again.

I suspect the problem is mostly that the ring roads get clogged up with other traffic. I doubt it has much to do with costs as by the time people are getting 2 buses in each direction they're probably on a day or longer ticket.