Hypothetical scenario where car usage massively declines

[HSTEd]

How about effect of abolishing bus fares (this would require regulation of buses obviously but that is peripheral in this case)?
Total bus fare (non-concessionary) income is only about £3.3bn - as can be seen here (page 18) so its not a totally absurd assumption to make.

I assume patronage would explode and everyone would need the largest possible buses - artics would likely be back on the agenda due to no need to check fares.
Also I imagine trolleybuses would end up in use to reduce the cost of running the very high frequencies on many routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about effect of abolishing bus fares (this would require regulation of buses obviously but that is peripheral in this case)?
Total bus fare (non-concessionary) income is only about £3.3bn - as can be seen here (page 18) so its not a totally absurd assumption to make.

That might well make a number of rural railway lines non-viable - it certainly has happened in a few places that rail subsidy had to be upped on such lines (even if cross-subsidy) because concessionary bus passes meant everyone switched away from rail.

 

[HSTEd]

That might well make a number of rural railway lines non-viable - it certainly has happened in a few places that rail subsidy had to be upped on such lines (even if cross-subsidy) because concessionary bus passes meant everyone switched away from rail.

Rural railway lines would probably have to be placed under the control of the body (or bodies) running the buses and be zero-fared. Essentially being treated as a peculiar guided busway.

It is probably the easiest way to cut car use in the near future without major economic problems though.
Even a token fare would be worthwhile, although that would prevent use of articulated busses or what not due to fare evasion - although whether many people would evade a 50p fare is questionable.

 

[ian959]

Rural railway lines would probably have to be placed under the control of the body (or bodies) running the buses and be zero-fared. Essentially being treated as a peculiar guided busway.

It is probably the easiest way to cut car use in the near future without major economic problems though.
Even a token fare would be worthwhile, although that would prevent use of articulated busses or what not due to fare evasion - although whether many people would evade a 50p fare is questionable.

Actually that might well be a very sensible solution. A flat 50p fare for the bus, some sort of flat fare for designated short distance "socially necessary" rail services in non-urban areas. Probably the overall cost to government would be less than the savings made from not having to build more roads. Couple that with a highway maintenance tax on commercial road vehicles and impact on the budget could be relatively minimal?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most people who don't use buses aren't avoiding them because they are expensive - while single fares are steep, passes are usually excellent value. They are avoiding them because, put bluntly, they are not very good.

Cramped seating, musty smell, cold in winter, hot in summer, slow, often infrequent, often unpunctual etc.

In places where there isn't a firm stick of expensive parking and high traffic congestion, it would be hard to get people onto buses (as distinct from trains/trams) without taking a continental European approach to quality. A rail-style level of professionalism and quality is very much required.

The Stagecoach Gold/Arriva Sapphire concepts do help, but they really aren't enough to make people *want* to switch. Bus lanes help, but they are rarely as well designed as in the Netherlands and Germany - the aim really must be that the bus only stops when it wishes to. And things like pressure ventilation/air conditioning (to get rid of the musty smell and condensation), double glazing and quality seating with a good seat pitch and width are needed to make the comfort level anywhere near that of a modern car.

 

[DarloRich]

You would need a substantial shift in public transport spending across all modes to carry all the required passengers, especially away form London.

Surely you would need to invest in light rail systems/ tramways in all cities and much more and better buses linking communities away from the centres with the network.

Rail services would need London level metro style services in the majority of cities. That means vast investment in infrastructure and rolling stock.

 

[HSTEd]

Most people who don't use buses aren't avoiding them because they are expensive - while single fares are steep, passes are usually excellent value. They are avoiding them because, put bluntly, they are not very good.

But many people who might use the bus aren't sure they are going to use them enough for passes to be worthwhile. Passes are thus irrelevant to that group.
If there was only one ticket price for every journey (50p per hop) then we would see a lot more people occasionally using the bus - which is the first step to people always using the bus. It would also eliminate the costly bureaucracy associated with passes.

Cramped seating, musty smell, cold in winter, hot in summer, slow, often infrequent, often unpunctual etc.

Often infrequent can only be solved by getting more passengers to use them, allowing for more frequent services - and indeed the others are mostly a result of old buses, buying new buses to make up the more frequent services would be big help there. But we have to get passenger use rising - which means making them cheap.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But many people who might use the pass aren't sure they are going to use them enough for passes to be worthwhile. Passes are thus irrelevant to that group.
If there was only one ticket price for every journey (50p per hop) then we would see a lot more people occasionally using the bus - which is the first step to people alwayhs using the bus.

Possibly, but I think the dislike runs a bit deeper than that.

Often infrequent can only be solved by getting more passengers to use them, allowing for more frequent services - and indeed the others are mostly a result of old buses, buying new buses to make up the more frequent services would be big help there. But we have to get passenger use rising - which means making them cheap.

As I said most car users are not avoiding buses because they are too expensive. They are avoiding them because they are largely not (a) fast enough or (b) of sufficient quality and comfort.

 

[DarloRich]

Possibly, but I think the dislike runs a bit deeper than that.



As I said most car users are not avoiding buses because they are too expensive. They are avoiding them because they are largely not (a) fast enough or (b) of sufficient quality and comfort.

or c) involve mixing with the "dregs" of society.

Away from London there is a view that is common - that the bus is for the poor

 

[HSTEd]

Possibly, but I think the dislike runs a bit deeper than that.

Indeed it does - but even a ten percent increase in patronage would be a big help in our current situation.
That would start making it plausible to increase frequencies of services.

As I said most car users are not avoiding buses because they are too expensive. They are avoiding them because they are largely not (a) fast enough or (b) of sufficient quality and comfort.

'Speed' is relative - in many cases they are really not much slower than a car would be. Frequency is really the biggest problem.
As to quality and comfort - that could only be achieved with new vehicles, which could easily get very expensive unless it occurs because requirements for buses are increasing, leading to increased procurements so that the average age of the fleet drops.

All of these problems would require significant spending.

Additionally people might perceive that buses are 'for the poor, students and old people' but the best way to challenge that perception is to make them so cheap that simply miser-level penny pinching overwhelms the other factors.

If return trip on a bus costs less than a litre of fuel you might get somewhere - otherwise even a fancy new bus with air conditioning and big seats or whatever will still be hamstrung by the fact that it is a bus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed it does - but even a ten percent increase in patronage would be a big help in our current situation.
That would start making it plausible to increase frequencies of services.

True.

'Speed' is relative - in many cases they are really not much slower than a car would be.

In most cases, in my experience, they *are* a lot slower than a car would be. One of the principal causes of this is them stopping for a very long period to board passengers. Off-bus ticketing has solved this problem in London to a significant extent, and that is needed in every other city as well. Contactless debit cards will become more and more common, and this is an excellent solution to the problem. For those unable to have such cards, an Oyster-a-like would help.

Frequency is really the biggest problem.

Depends where. Many city services are already very frequent, but journeys are slow.

As to quality and comfort - that could only be achieved with new vehicles, which could easily get very expensive unless it occurs because requirements for buses are increasing, leading to increased procurements so that the average age of the fleet drops.

Quality refurbishments can help - ISTR that the initial Arriva Sapphire vehicles were not brand-new.

All of these problems would require significant spending.

Indeed they would. Initially that would have to come from the public purse - I can't see how else it can be done.

Additionally people might perceive that buses are 'for the poor, students and old people' but the best way to challenge that perception is to make them so cheap that simply miser-level penny pinching overwhelms the other factors.

Wouldn't that confirm that point?

If return trip on a bus costs less than a litre of fuel you might get somewhere

I don't agree. Most people I know who won't use buses wouldn't use them if they were free. It is the other problems with them that put them off, not the price. Those same people will use taxis for much more money.

otherwise even a fancy new bus with air conditioning and big seats or whatever will still be hamstrung by the fact that it is a bus.

That is true, but you won't make the impression of a bus better by making it cheaper or bolting on fancy body panels - the bus has to become a quality European style way to travel. It needs to be quicker, with better dedicated infrastructure. It needs to be well-integrated with other modes. It needs to be punctual and reliable. It needs to be comfortable. It needs to be driven by a well-presented, polite professional with a high standard of driving. It needs to have air conditioning, because we're reaching the point that cars almost ubiquitously have that as well, as do all new trains.

Sort that lot, and *then* the hard job of attracting people can begin, otherwise they will just go "it's cheap, but it's still rubbish".

 

[HSTEd]

In most cases, in my experience, they *are* a lot slower than a car would be. One of the principal causes of this is them stopping for a very long period to board passengers. Off-bus ticketing has solved this problem in London to a significant extent, and that is needed in every other city as well. Contactless debit cards will become more and more common, and this is an excellent solution to the problem. For those unable to have such cards, an Oyster-a-like would help.

As the recent ITSO debacle in Manchester has shown, attempting to bring in Oyster-alikes or contactless card payment with the existing fare system is a pain n the neck and will take years and cost lots of money.
A simple flat fare per journey would eliminate all that, every card scanned would deduct 50p and that would be that.
Imagine an electronic carnet ticket charged with 'fare units' that are 50p each (but don't necessarily have to be sold at 50p each).

Depends where. Many city services are already very frequent, but journeys are slow.

Any kind of journeys in cities are slow however - there is not much we could do about that without the kind of construction projects that provoked the protests that stopped the inner London motorway project in its tracks.

Out in the sticks we can however do better if we push up frequencies so that the waiting time is measured in minutes.

Quality refurbishments can help - ISTR that the initial Arriva Sapphire vehicles were not brand-new.

The problem is that kind of bespoke refurbishment can sometimes cost almost as much as simply buying a new hybrid doubledeck (or single deck if there are clearance issues).

Wouldn't that confirm that point?

Initially yes - but the perception will change once a few people decide to try it because they are so cheap and discover that the world didn't end.
It won't change perceptions overnight but it helps.
Also lower fares have an important social purpose that cannot be ignored.

I don't agree. Most people I know who won't use buses wouldn't use them if they were free. It is the other problems with them that put them off, not the price. Those same people will use taxis for much more money.

But we will never get these people to use the bus for the forseable future - so forget about them
We need to get the people who might consider using the bus but currently don't.
We could double bus use without touching the hard core of people.

That is true, but you won't make the impression of a bus better by making it cheaper or bolting on fancy body panels - the bus has to become a quality European style way to travel. It needs to be quicker, with better dedicated infrastructure.

There will be no dedicated infrastructure apart from maybe some power supplies for trolley buses that are non segregated.
Bus lanes are ineffective and dedicated busways or off bus ticketing are all too expensive.

They cost so much money that people will just demand we build more roads instead.

It needs to be well-integrated with other modes.

What other transport modes?
This is Britain, outside London and a handful of other cities the transport modes available are walk, bicycle, bus and car/taxi.
That is about it.
There is nothing to integrate them with, and the obsession with integration often becomes an albatross draped around the shoulders of the industry - people use it as an excuse not to spend any money.

It needs to be punctual and reliable. It needs to be comfortable. It needs to be driven by a well-presented, polite professional with a high standard of driving. It needs to have air conditioning, because we're reaching the point that cars almost ubiquitously have that as well, as do all new trains.

That will require massive capital investment in new buses - which is going to cost billions. We will have to generate some major improvements in patronage to justify that.
And there is nothing we can do about punctuality and reliability - at the end of th day they have to use the roads just like everyone else.

Sort that lot, and *then* the hard job of attracting people can begin, otherwise they will just go "it's cheap, but it's still rubbish".

Other than its "its not quite so rubbish but the fares are still more than the marginal cost of just using the car I already have".

 

[Bletchleyite]

As the recent ITSO debacle in Manchester has shown, attempting to bring in Oyster-alikes or contactless card payment with the existing fare system is a pain n the neck and will take years and cost lots of money.
A simple flat fare per journey would eliminate all that, every card scanned would deduct 50p and that would be that.
Imagine an electronic carnet ticket charged with 'fare units' that are 50p each (but don't necessarily have to be sold at 50p each).

I agree flat fares make that easier, though touch in and out is an option. However that flat fare could be £2 as technically easily as it could be 50p.

Out in the sticks we can however do better if we push up frequencies so that the waiting time is measured in minutes.

True.

Also lower fares have an important social purpose that cannot be ignored.

They do, but so does the idea of means testing, so offering discounts and/or free travel to those in need may be a more affordable way to handle the matter.

There is nothing to integrate them with

Other buses, for one; if you want cars given up then non-city-centre journeys need to be more accessible, and the only way to do that short of putting on loads of buses carrying fresh air is going to be to make connections work.

You could take the approach, as I believe Buckinghamshire County Council has, that buses are best for town centre journeys and push that to the expense of all other things, but that doesn't get rid of cars. And if you have a car you're likely to use it for going to town as well. A difficult one to reconcile.

And there is nothing we can do about punctuality and reliability - at the end of th day they have to use the roads just like everyone else.

Except the buses don't. If we have the right political will, we can get the white paint out and add proper, well-designed bus infrastructure. That isn't simple bus lanes ending just before junctions - in fact at junctions it's even more important and requires clever design.

Other than its "its not quite so rubbish but the fares are still more than the marginal cost of just using the car I already have".

Fair point. But the reason I won't be using the bus to go to the cinema later on is that the service is inadequate, not the cost. It is more expensive than driving, but even if it were 50p I would still not use it. The problem in the case of this specific trip is (fitting one of your points) the low frequency of the evening service in MK - miss one and that's an hour less in bed or a tenner on a taxi - you can forget that! Seat comfort is a bit less relevant in this case as it'll be quite quiet so I'd have two to myself. FWIW, if the service was adequate I'd use it at the £2.30 fare; I'd be able to have a drink as well.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would it hypothetically be the case that all the buses in this "fantasy thread scenario" that ran in the "North of England" would be all those cascaded from the areas of "the beautiful south" and would some "ex-rail" type come up with a fantastic scheme to build "new buses at a third of the cost" from the bodyshells of buses that, shall we be kind and say, are of "a certain vintage"...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it hypothetically be the case that all the buses in this "fantasy thread scenario" that ran in the "North of England" would be all those cascaded from the areas of "the beautiful south" and would some "ex-rail" type come up with a fantastic scheme to build "new buses at a third of the cost" from the bodyshells of buses that, shall we be kind and say, are of "a certain vintage"...

Quite amusing, but it is indeed usual to cascade ex-London vehicles to the provinces, with a bit of a refurb and tidy-up along the way.

 

[Tom B]

Car ownership is decreasing, and many people in cities are using car clubs or hire vehicles for the times they actually need a car - e.g. moving house, trip to IKEA, going to the middle of nowhere in the countryside - still works out cheaper than paying for a car to sit on your drive which you only use at the weekend! I think it's a generational thing too - friends and colleagues in their 40s/50s cannot see how you could possibly be without a car, even if they do only use it once a week.

 

[HSTEd]

They do, but so does the idea of means testing, so offering discounts and/or free travel to those in need may be a more affordable way to handle the matter.

It would appear so on the face of it, but you then significantly increase your overheads since you have to identify what people get what discounts in a foolproof manner and in a way highly resistant to fraud.
This has been shown to be rather problematic.

Except the buses don't. If we have the right political will, we can get the white paint out and add proper, well-designed bus infrastructure. That isn't simple bus lanes ending just before junctions - in fact at junctions it's even more important and requires clever design.

That is the sort of thing that is going to cost lots of money though.

I decided to do some looking up at how much it would cost to replace every existing bus with a new hybrid bus. (Or put another way, double the size of the bus fleet with half the buses in the combined fleet being brand new).

If we ignore London there are 9700 buses in other metropolitan areas and 16700 in non metropolitan areas.
If we, just to simplify things, assume that all buses in met areas are double decker buses and all non metropolitan buses are single decker 12m full size buses (I know that is a silly simplification but I have seen a mix of buses in both areas so it might come out alright overall) then we can estimate the cost of that many buses.

An Alexander Dennis Enviro350H hybrid bus apparently costs £280k each, whilst an Alexander Dennis Enviro400H costs ~£350k (or something like that, its rather iffy how much).
BOth buses come with saloon air chilling apparently - which gives us £8bn for this new fleet.

Which is actually less than I was expecting. Also shows just how small the cost margin between double deck and single deck buses has become.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is the sort of thing that is going to cost lots of money though.

Not a huge amount if you're willing to make driving a car less convenient at the same time. It mostly requires white paint.

Which is actually less than I was expecting. Also shows just how small the cost margin between double deck and single deck buses has become.

That is as interesting as it is helpful for passenger comfort - if it's financially feasible to use double deckers instead of single deckers on a given service, comfort can be increased substantially by going for a lower capacity and better legroom, or even 2+1 seating upstairs. Whereas downstairs can contain a small amount of seating for the less mobile as well as a good amount of standing space for those making short journeys.

 

[JamesRowden]

A system to regulate car-use maybe to introduce a £10,000 per year "congested road tax" which would need to be payed for any vehicle (including buses) to travel within areas which are placed in "congestion zones" which would be defined as part of the scheme.

Transition at the start of the scheme could be smoothed by gradually increasing the tax to its final value, which would allow optimisation of the final value during transition.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I would include electric bycyles in the tax since they do not have the full health benefits of push bikes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would include electric bycyles in the tax since they do not have the full health benefits of push bikes.

That's rather nanny-stateist. Electric-assisted bicycles have significant environmental and congestion benefits over cars. It makes no sense to me to discourage them. If anything, people might start out on them and then as they get fitter progress to a regular manual bicycle.

 

[JamesRowden]

That's rather nanny-stateist. Electric-assisted bicycles have significant environmental and congestion benefits over cars. It makes no sense to me to discourage them. If anything, people might start out on them and then as they get fitter progress to a regular manual bicycle.

Electric bycyles would cause congestion. I think that push byclycles would be too difficult to regulate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Electric bycyles would cause congestion. I think that push byclycles would be too difficult to regulate.

Electric bicycles would cause far less congestion than cars. As buses are not suitable for every journey, I consider them to be very much to be encouraged.

 

[tivoli]

Looking at a drastic reduction of use in cars because of say sudden climate change, I would like to think the Dunkirk spirit would kick in and people would adjust to the new circumstances. But as has been mentioned earlier in such a scenario the railways would not be the only part of our infrastructure which would change, people would have to cope with the new situation, also at worst there would be no expectation of it being all over by Christmas.

Sadly I cannot see any government provision for any reduction, indeed we have seen the postponement of many rail improvements. Continuing the war allusion wasn't it Churchill who warned about the future threat and urged the government to do something about it.

 

[JamesRowden]

Electric bicycles would cause far less congestion than cars. As buses are not suitable for every journey, I consider them to be very much to be encouraged.

Perhaps a smaller tax could be applied to eletric-bicycles.

 

[DarloRich]

Car ownership is decreasing, and many people in cities are using car clubs or hire vehicles for the times they actually need a car - e.g. moving house, trip to IKEA, going to the middle of nowhere in the countryside - still works out cheaper than paying for a car to sit on your drive which you only use at the weekend! I think it's a generational thing too - friends and colleagues in their 40s/50s cannot see how you could possibly be without a car, even if they do only use it once a week.

i dont own a car - it is fine where i live now but i would have been terribly isolated when i lived in North Yorkshire/Norfolk or Devon without one

 

[mrmartin]

i dont own a car - it is fine where i live now but i would have been terribly isolated when i lived in North Yorkshire/Norfolk or Devon without one

I find this interesting. Would we see even more people moving to big(ger) cities to move around? Thus causing even more congestion on the heavy rail systems there that are harder to upgrade?

eg: most people in London wouldn't be affected too badly, those that drive may have a slightly longer bus/rail route in the vast majority of cases.

However, those in smaller towns with a huge dependency on driving and very bad urban design (huge sprawling industrial/business parks for example and no real public transport infrastructure would be very badly affected. Would people move en masse to the cities to find employment and housing well connected? Thus causing even more demand on infrastructure there?

 

[HSTEd]

If there were suitable capital grants to purchase Optare Solo esque buses you could probably set up shuttles in most smallish towns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If there were suitable capital grants to purchase Optare Solo esque buses you could probably set up shuttles in most smallish towns.

You mean like the Manchester Metroshuttle? Probably not much use in a smaller town or city. Most British towns and cities have quite compact, walkable centres - London and Manchester are two key exceptions.

 

[HSTEd]

There are towns and cities that have 'walkable' centres - but people don't like walking them.
Using my hometown of Grantham as an example, the 'core' of the town is at least ~2km long, stretching from the bottom of Spittlegate Level to somewhere on North Parade or along Manthorpe road.
These distances are walkable but people still use cars even if they live in or around this core area. (Lots of people do shopping in the centre using cars even if they live on the relatively central estates)

Those are the journeys we have to capture.

Relatively short journeys that cannot be practically done on bicycle or walking since they often involve carrying significant loads.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I do so wonder how a comparative thread to this thread would read in its posting responses if the question posed was re-phrased....."hypothetically if rail services were massively reduced"