Buses vs Trains

[tbtc]

Probably because of the fact buses are slow, unreliable, generally uncomfortable, represent poor value for money, are typically used by the types of people as a mode of transport of last resort

I agree that trains are generally preferable to buses, but trains are also more expensive, less flexible etc. Both are needed to tackle transport demand, and one wouldn't work without the other.

However I must question your "uncomfortable" above - whilst we talk about Pacers having 'bus seats", most buses have much better seating these days than previous generations did (I've mentioned the leather seats, the 2v1 seating etc elsewhere on this forum before).

Whilst bus seats are generally only going to be used for journeys of half an hour (or under, on average), I'd rather have a modern bus seat than a Voyager seat.

As for the argument about Lothian/ Nottingham, I think these show that government involvement in buses is more necessary than government involvement in trains. WHilst there have been positives and negatives of both privatisations, the few remaining "state controlled" bus operations are shining examples of what could be possible, whereas state provision of trains (South East Trains, East Coast Trains) hasn't been significantly better than private providers...

 

[yorkie]

Rail is (rightly) considered a far superior mode of transport to buses & coaches, however there are certain routes, especially in Scotland, where the railway line takes a convoluted path and buses / coaches realise they are going to be able to get an advantage in journey times, so they put on a good service to compete. In those cases, it can be possible that the bus can be both cheaper and quicker, and can 'win' the market share on that particular flow. But this is only the case due to the unfair disadvantage rail has on those routes. Rail remains a far superior mode.

So, if the argument is over which mode is better, rail is the clear winner, but if you are looking at a particular journey, then the circumstances may favour the bus. More examples will be found in Scotland. In fact, it's quite amazing that on some routes, where the train has a big disadvantage (e.g. limited to 40mph & having to go a much longer way round) yet still many people choose it over going by bus. The bus has a huge advantage on a journey like Inverness - Thurso/Wick. And they don't pay their way in terms of 'access charges'; the cost to FSR of running trains is artificially higher than the bus companies costs.

I wouldn't consider living somewhere without easy access to rail.

 

[90019]

But this is only the case due to the unfair disadvantage rail has on those routes.

There's nothinhg unfair about it.
Rail will not always be the superior method of transport, to claim it is is just silly.


Can someone please explain why a coach is "less socially acceptable" than a train on a longer journey? I've yet to see any convincing argument.

 

[Mojo]

Can someone please explain why a coach is "less socially acceptable" than a train on a longer journey? I've yet to see any convincing argument.

Well why don't you do a poll and see how many people will switch from their car to the coach, and then you'll see the answer?

Buses and coaches do not have the "wow factor" which other modes do
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6413839.stm). Maybe they are seen as an option for the lower classes, and that the type of people who use them are obviously poor and can't afford to drive. Maybe it's the image of someone stood at the side of the road in the pouring rain whilst someone is in their warm and dry car. I know when I drive past people at bus stops I often think "you unfortunate person."

 

[Flamingo]

It's good this!

You are all putting forward reasons that the railways can get away with poor customer services, because people would not be caught dead on a bus as it is seen as a "last resort".

Discuss...

 

[tbtc]

the image of someone stood at the side of the road in the pouring rain

Although, to be fair, many local railway stations provide little more than the shelter you'd get at a bus shelter.

In fact, since some bus shelters have real time service announcement on a screen, there's less difference between waiting on a wet pavement with a plastic shelter and waiting on a wet platform with a plastic shelter.

 

[Mojo]

If you think customer service on the railways is bad, then travel on an Airline where they'll most likely tell you to get lost, or travel by bus where they'll tell you to... er... actually they'll probably not tell you anything as chances are there are no staff to speak to!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In fact, since some bus shelters have real time service announcement on a screen, there's less difference between waiting on a wet pavement with a plastic shelter and waiting on a wet platform with a plastic shelter.

At least if you're stood on a station you have some idea if the train is going to turn up or not, and you have safeguards in the fact you're going to get support and possible compensation if things go wrong.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think a bus passenger would love the facilities provided at even a rural halt!

 

[90019]

Well why don't you do a poll and see how many people will switch from their car to the coach, and then you'll see the answer?

This is nothing to do with cars.

Buses and coaches do not have the "wow factor" which other modes do
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6413839.stm).

An interesting quote from that article:

Worse than lacking romantic overtones, the coach is a subject of classic British snobbery. A nation that identifies social class by patronage of supermarket is one that inevitably looks down its nose at the notion of coach travel.

Maybe they are seen as an option for the lower classes, and that the type of people who use them are obviously poor and can't afford to drive.

I see.
When I was commuting on the buses, most of the other people on them were also going to and from work, with a few students, OAPs, tourists. etc. on them as well.
Do you consider these to be people who can't afford to drive or do you think the buses have proved a better option for them?

Maybe it's the image of someone stood at the side of the road in the pouring rain whilst someone is in their warm and dry car. I know when I drive past people at bus stops I often think "you unfortunate person."

Do you think the same if you drive past a small station and see someone is a small plastic shelter in the cold and the rain waiting for an infrequent train?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think a bus passenger would love the facilities provided at even a rural halt!

What about where the facilities at the bus stop are better than the halt?

 

[Mojo]

This is nothing to do with cars.

Well it does, how else do you expect people to do long distance journeys other than train, bus or car? Walk? Cycle? Hoverboard?

When I was commuting on the buses, most of the other people on them were also going to and from work, with a few students, OAPs, tourists. etc. on them as well.
Do you consider these to be people who can't afford to drive or do you think the buses have proved a better option for them?

I suspect that they had chosen to take the bus because they couldn't have driven for whatever reason, rather than actually wanting to take the bus. Unfortunately that isn't replicated nationwide or even across Edinburgh otherwise more than 28% of people would travel by bus or coach. It seems that whilst modal split in Edinburgh has changed since the 2001 census, it has not been in favour of buses for the numbers have only changed by a few percentage points?

Do you think the same if you drive past a small station and see someone is a small plastic shelter in the cold and the rain waiting for an infrequent train?

What about where the facilities at the bus stop are better than the halt?

No, because I don't tend to see people waiting for a train from my car and I know that a train journey tends to be more enjoyable and comfortable than waiting for a bus whilst watching other people get to their destinations after me.

 

[tbtc]

If you think customer service on the railways is bad, then travel on an Airline where they'll most likely tell you to get lost

I agree that airline "customer service" is incredibly poor, I don't think you'll get any argument there...

travel by bus where they'll tell you to... er... actually they'll probably not tell you anything as chances are there are no staff to speak to!

Depends.

Bus stops are obviously "unstaffed", but then so are a lot of local train stations for much of the day.

Once you are on the bus, you have a driver for information (whereas some trains have no conductor/ guard, or if there is one he's hiding in the back cab)

I think a bus passenger would love the facilities provided at even a rural halt!

I'm not sure of the numbers, so I'm not going to guess, but a lot of stations aren't staffed at all times (some have no staffing at all, just a ticket machine), certainly not all stations have indoor seating, so you are going to get nothing better than a "bus shelter" and maybe an information screen (which bus stops are now getting, with realtime displays http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebustocrookes/3255791573/)

Sure, if you are talking London Kings Cross to Edinburgh Waverley by 225, you will have First Class facilities at the stations, but at a lot of local train stations (for the kind of journeys where buses are the competition) you will find an unstaffed station with only a bus shelter and a ticket machine for company whilst waiting for your Pacer (etc).

 

[90019]

Well it does, how else do you expect people to do long distance journeys other than train, bus or car? Walk? Cycle? Hoverboard?

I asked why you consider a bus to be "less socially acceptable" than a train. Not how many people use them rather than a car.

I suspect that they had chosen to take the bus because they couldn't have driven for whatever reason, rather than actually wanting to take the bus.

Most of the people in my office took the buse because they wanted to and because it is a much better alternative to the car. A few cycled, ones who lived nearby walked and very few drove, despite there being a car park underneath.
I sometimes used the car when I had to go and do things during my lunch break or after work that couldn't be done on the bus, but when I parked it under the office, the only other people who had cars there were the chief exec, some of the partners and associates. There were just under 200 people working there, and usually 20 cars at most in the car park.

No, because I don't tend to see people waiting for a train from my car and I know that a train journey tends to be more enjoyable and comfortable than waiting for a bus whilst watching other people get to their destinations after me.

You're comparing two different things.
I could turn that round and say I find a journey on a bus much more enjoyable and comfortable to waiting for a train.

Personally, I find a journey on a bus to be just as enjoyable and comfortable as a journey on a train.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

Both have diffrent advantages.

Whilst our trains down south didn't work in the snow the busses were out and about and were VERY handy to have, they are also handy all year round. No they might be as comfy but they faired better over trains this winter and got me from A -to- B when I needed them. Other than working better in the snow, I actually prefer taking the bus from Lewisham -to- Grove Park (Where I live) as there more freqeunt than the SE services and gets me there.

Trains on the other hand I do prefer to take, there much quicker and some feel they have better quality than there bus counterparts, there only problem (trains down south) is the snow.

 

[Flamingo]

Mojo, you are obviously a believer in Mrs Thatcher:

Any man who rides a bus to work after the age of 30 can count himself a failure in life.

(I hate to say it, but in this like so many other things, she was wrong!)

 

[jon0844]

There will always be a place for railways and a place for buses. Just for different markets. They could easily work together to expand those markets....

This is why I have a PlusBUS season, as I don't live by the train station and the bus is needed to get to/from the station. Luckily, it's a pretty direct route (and a circular route) so it's one of the more reliable services in terms of time keeping.

Buses should complement the railway, and if you give the right information, such as maps and timetables (with live running provided by GPS on the buses, not just an estimate or even a fixed timetable that can't show cancellations) then it's fine. London has got this pretty much spot on, and it's dead easy to tell what bus you need to get, when it goes and how long (approx) it takes to get there.

Just like the Tube maps, TfL seems to have sussed out the way to provide bus information. In Hertfordshire, it's the old method of loads of timetables in numerical order (sometimes) and in different styles, based on the operator. There's no summary to tell you which buses go where, and at some bus stations, buses going to the same destinations leave from different stops - so you must gamble which one to stand at.

As a tourist, buses must scare the hell out of people.. and I am also surprised the local authorities haven't sussed out that the buses run better when people have info. On every bus I take locally at home, people are always getting on to ask 'are you going to xxx' and then when they're told it isn't, they delay the bus by asking the driver which bus(es) it is - and then WHEN it is!

In London, people don't seem to need to ask at all. They get on, scan their Oyster and off the bus goes. Reading out the next stop is also another way to avoid hassle for the driver, and it's nice to see that London (and a few other cities that beat London) has finally caught up with the rest of the world!

 

[causton]

In Hertfordshire, it's the old method of loads of timetables in numerical order (sometimes) and in different styles, based on the operator. There's no summary to tell you which buses go where, and at some bus stations, buses going to the same destinations leave from different stops - so you must gamble which one to stand at.

Let's hope Intalink rush forward with getting real-time bus information to stops and start rolling out their trials of better style timetables to more places across the county!

Personally, buses are better for me. Let's take some journeys I've made recently:

• School: Bus (30 minute walk at each end to/from relevant train stations)
• Work: Bus (despite being a reasonably large place, no train station whatsoever)
• Shopping (St Albans): Bus (bus is a bit slow but cheaper and faster than going all the way to Kings Cross and back! FCC actually promote a ticket to travel Hatfield - STA by bus instead of train)
• Shopping (Watford): Bus (express bus takes an hour and ran fine in the snow, when again I would have had to go all the way to Kings Cross and back out again to get there)
• Shopping (Oxford Street): Bus (express "coach" turn-up-and-go hourly service stops 3 minutes from my house and right on Oxford Street - train is 30 minute walk to station and then a long long walk from KGX to Oxford Street)
• Visiting friends (Potters Bar): Bus in daytime, train in evening! (train runs all day and night long but last bus is at 7pm, still catch a bus from the station home to avoid the 30 minute walk)

Compared with the cost of the train as well, the bus is better in my opinion. That may be just because I live in a place with an annoyingly placed station and a lucky placement of bus services though! And probably pretty lucky most of the buses are 58-59 reg Citaros that I manage to catch.

And let it be said I don't think buses are excellent either - it takes far too long for cash payments when they have awkward (not rounded) fares and people spend ages sorting out the right tickets. A bus I got on did spend 25 minutes getting about 30 passengers on because of the inability of any of the passengers to know what ticket to get - and then fiddling with change for ages!

 

[Failed Unit]

If you look at a station like Market rasen. You get a shelter that is it. No ticket machine. No information actually now you can use you own phone) poor service. But it is quicker a 16 minutes journey you could never drive that quick to Lincoln. But the frequency is very poor. The bus has no shelter is more frequent but takes 45 mins so very slow. Price us about the same. Because of combination of price and speed I would always drive rather than train. But I may take the train to avoid parking. In both situations both are useless if you want to enjoy a drink in the evening. If you rely on any form of public transport in rural areas you can't get out much!

 

[Mojo]

I asked why you consider a bus to be "less socially acceptable" than a train. Not how many people use them rather than a car.

I've already given my reasons, based on hard statistics (buses do not give long-term modal shift), the view of transport planners and hearsay evidence from members of the public.

What happens in some cities is not evidence that the same solution can be promoted nationwide. Your evidence against that seems to be your opinion by seeing a few full buses. My experience comes from several years campaigning for a better transport alternative in Greater Bristol, and seeing millions squandered on buses that has done nothing at all, and are still running around with hardly anyone on, comments from people who admit that buses alone will not solve our city's transport problems and that they would never switch back to using buses.

Buses should complement the railway, and if you give the right information, such as maps and timetables (with live running provided by GPS on the buses, not just an estimate or even a fixed timetable that can't show cancellations) then it's fine. London has got this pretty much spot on, and it's dead easy to tell what bus you need to get, when it goes and how long (approx) it takes to get there.

Absolutely right, buses are an okay solution for medium distance journeys in the suburbs (such as linking up railway stations with residential areas within 5km). The idea that we can solve all the transport problems in urban areas using buses and buses alone is what I object to.

Also, Flamingo, sorry to disappoint you, but Thatcher did not make that comment: http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2009/04/22/mrs-thatcher-an-apology/

 

[90019]

I've already given my reasons, based on hard statistics (buses do not give long-term modal shift), the view of transport planners and hearsay evidence from members of the public.

You appear to think that buses are not a viable solution anywhere for anyone, backing it up using nationwide statistics.
I'm saying they are in places, using Lothian as a local example of somewhere where they are, my evidence is that I have been using them for over 14 years, including travelling to and from school, commuting, going to see people and just going to places I've not been to before, as well as having talked to other users of them and drivers too.
Granted they don't go everywhere in Edinburgh, but they go most places, and they're much more useful than the trains are and than the tram will be (if they ever actually finish it).

 

[4SRKT]

Not that I like buses, I had to use one replacing the EC service from Perth - Aviemore. I had 2 seats to myself from Pitlochry, decent legroom - all on a new or recently refurbished coach. Thing is, it was an uncomfortable piece of crap.

Rather like a 170 then

 

[BrummyBoy]

Both are good modes of transport though however i tend 2 use the bus more as its cheaper, more convinient, goes more useful places and is usually more frequent, although the train is usually a better ride.

 

[ivanhoe]

For most people who use public transport( outside of London) there is little choice between transport modes for their daily Journies. I know the systems in Liverpool and Leicestershire best and my thoughts are based on my experiences there.
In Liverpool, many people will live over a mile from a railway station. Simply the train will not satisfy their needs on a day to day basis. Buses ( post de regulation) go where people want to go. Trains tend to meet the needs of people either on the edge of the City Boundary or beyond. No amount of extra investment is going to shift people away from buses to trains. However, there will be some shift in the other direction on such routes as Liverpool to Preston( via Crosby, Formby , Southport) and cross river routes to New Brighton and West Kirkby. What drives this modal shift is investment in good quality Buses .

I currently live in Loughborough. Given the Geographical situation of the Station, if I was going to Leicester, then I would get the bus. Why? Simply the bus stop is a 5 minute walk from my house. Similarly, there are 24 hour services to Derby, good connections to Nottingham from the town centre. Unless I am going on journies outside these areas then the Bus is my preffered choice. The Buses are in general of good quality and are very reliable. Similarly in Leicester, rail only serves a few areas so Buses are important.

In conclusion, buses and trains need each other and for most people, there is little choice as to what mode they could use.The idea that Buses are for ' losers' is both pompous and
Thatcherite . Trains are also not part of the total solution for Public Transport Needs. Join the two together with through ticketing arrangements, gives people real choice!

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

To be perfectly honest, this is turning in to quite a petty argument (especially that on Page 1!)

Buses, I would use for suburban transport, or in to my local town centre. This isn't because they're bigger - it's because they're every 10 minutes, whereas the train is every hour. Not only that, it's a good 2 miles to our station, despite being called "Seaton Carew", its nowhere near the centre of Seaton Carew! It's easier to get a bus to the town centre, Hartlepool, than it is to walk half an hour to get the train, sit for 3 minutes and then get off. It's twenty minutes direct to the town by bus.

In no way do I feel like I have no dignity when I use the bus, that's what they're here for, so i for one am going to use them. Trains can't get to every little area that buses can, and so if they worked together, it's a great network. Mojo, your comments are very contradictive as in all honesty, buses are better in some ways than trains, and vice-versa.

Buses are good at getting where trains can't - its just when they compete that we have a problem.

The Mojo response was in reply to this;

I'd still not take the bus, because it's a bus and buses are a horrible mode of transport and one which is not socially acceptable. I wouldn't take a bus at either end, I'd find another way of travelling.

I hardly thinking taking a few examples of where buses might be faster against the much more likely chance of a train being quicker.

 

[Metroland]

I live in Loughborough and I wouldn't touch the buses, save for the overnight service. I live 5 minutes from the station, so can get to the centre of Leicester 2-5 quicker times than by car (in 14 minutes from the house). Derby, Nottingham and other places are well served.

I only would consider a bus going to a place lke the Midland railway centre which isn't served by Rail.

Rail is primarily a medium distance form of travel, unless you have an extensive surburban or light rail network, it would make up centre - centre journeys. Having said that despite potentially 24 times more right of way, buses have similar passenger Kms to rail, which says a lot about 1) where the flows go and the importance of speed 2) the lack of attractiveness of buses considering they compete more head-head with the car. Most users are non-car drivers, whereas quite a lot of people who own cars will use trains because of speed and comfort.

 

[tbtc]

despite potentially 24 times more right of way, buses have similar passenger Kms to rail, which says a lot about 1) where the flows go and the importance of speed 2) the lack of attractiveness of buses considering they compete more head-head with the car

Then again, a twelve coach train will carry more people than a minibus...

All stats can be twisted

 

[Metroland]

But you can't get away from the fact that since the 1950s buses have constantly lost passengers (outside London, but that's only reversed recently) whereas rail has remained steady (despite losing 40% of the network) or gained passengers.

It is a fact buses are hopeless at modal shift, and once people buy cars they generally do not use buses. It's not to say they are not useful for low income people (though outside cities they seem to be even more expensive than rail despite 60% of costs being covered by the taxpayer) or going places rail is not economic.

Personally I am not anti bus, but would prefer to see them integrated with rail, so you get a more seamless journey experience. Things like oyster cards and plus bus are a good thing.

 

[MCR247]

Its easy giving general statistics for the country, but nottingham must have more people using buses, otherwise why are we having services double in frequency?!

 

[Metroland]

Nottingham is one of the few exceptions, but they do have an intelligent council that is good at public transport, and has the brains to integrate bus, tram and train and provide seamless tickets.

Buses were actually in a downward spiral until the trams were introduced, and the two compliment each other.

Cities like Bristol who have relied more on buses and made many mistakes during the 60s, have huge traffic problems with the buses expensive and underused.

 

[Tom B]

Cities like Bristol who have relied more on buses and made many mistakes during the 60s, have huge traffic problems with the buses expensive and underused.

And the fault of the latter can be explained with the words "FirstBus".

South Yorkshire once had an excellent bus network, low fares, and reliable frequent services with modern vehicles. Since Mrs T decided that private industry should be allowed to meddle with them, the service has gone through the floor, the fares through the roof, the vehicles are questionably roadworthy and the timetable may as well not exist for all it's adhered to. Oh, and the public subsidy is still there!

 

[Metroland]

Indeed, but bus comapanies always did like monopolies and have some of the worst records for underhand methods of destroying other bus companies, tramways and branchlines. Leaving people with less options and buying cars in the process, never to return.

Only sensible regulation and public transport integration reflecting on what mode does what best in the only way fowards and it's been done it Europe for years, rather than following the 'race to the bottom' market system which actually serves nobody in the end.

 

[142094]

Buses may not be a viable alternative to the car, but then again not everyone has access to a car. At the same time you need to look at the fact that people who own a car will try to maximise the use of their car to lower the costs per mile they pay (petrol, road tax etc), even if this means using the car when the bus is a viable alternative. IMO we should scrap road tax or whatever it is called now and replace it with a price per mile charge and a congestion charge in major cities.

Remove the cars from the equation (or severely recude their numbers) and you'll find that bus services are in fact faster and more reliable than they are at present (and will be much cheaper than using a car). Bus lanes and bus gates can only have a certain effect.

The main problem is that fact that owning a car is a status symbol, and one that doesn't look like changing anytime soon.