How did certain European cities discover integrated networks?

[johncrossley]

Isn't the first step an integrated ticket system? When you have different fares for different routes, there will be those who take the "cheaper" route, even if it is slower, and also more costly to operate, since passengers spend more time on board.

But did cities decide to introduce an integrated fare system *because* they had designed the network accordingly, or the other way around? Or at the same time?

 

[Taunton]

The Tyne & Wear Metro was an example of not how to do it. The transport academics devised an approach where city-radial buses were diverted to Metro hubs instead, the last leg being (after going up and down steps, and waiting) on the new Metro. Even at Gateshead, from where you could see the city centre buildings just across the river.

Then came bus deregulation, and independent buses quickly started up running into the city itself. So now there was a choice. Guess what happened? The Metro hub approach was abandoned by the customers in droves, they far preferred a direct one-seat bus ride. The public authority held out for a while, but in the end gave in, and did the same.

There were plenty of precedents. In 1961 in Glasgow the new "Blue Trains" at Kings Park, on the south side, set up an interchange hub with the range of bus routes from further out passing there. Lots of publicity, through ticketing, but a notable failure, as the buses, guess what, continued as before to the city centre, while the trains, running at 10-15 minute intervals, were probably just running in to pick you up when your bus was most of the way there. This was described using various terms about the bus system like "unfair", or "should be stopped", as if the overall design should be for the convenience of the rail operator rather than the travellers.

 

[Austriantrain]

The Tyne & Wear Metro was an example of not how to do it. The transport academics devised an approach where city-radial buses were diverted to Metro hubs instead, the last leg being (after going up and down steps, and waiting) on the new Metro. Even at Gateshead, from where you could see the city centre buildings just across the river.

Then came bus deregulation, and independent buses quickly started up running into the city itself. So now there was a choice. Guess what happened? The Metro hub approach was abandoned by the customers in droves, they far preferred a direct one-seat bus ride. The public authority held out for a while, but in the end gave in, and did the same.

There were plenty of precedents. In 1961 in Glasgow the new "Blue Trains" at Kings Park, on the south side, set up an interchange hub with the range of bus routes from further out passing there. Lots of publicity, through ticketing, but a notable failure, as the buses, guess what, continued as before to the city centre, while the trains, running at 10-15 minute intervals, were probably just running in to pick you up when your bus was most of the way there. This was described using various terms about the bus system like "unfair", or "should be stopped", as if the overall design should be for the convenience of the rail operator rather than the travellers.

Well, each to their own. I prefer to live in a city-Centre that is not chock-full of buses, and with a very high public-transport modal split as well, so it can’t be that inconvenient to travellers…

 

[edwin_m]

The Tyne & Wear Metro was an example of not how to do it. The transport academics devised an approach where city-radial buses were diverted to Metro hubs instead, the last leg being (after going up and down steps, and waiting) on the new Metro. Even at Gateshead, from where you could see the city centre buildings just across the river.

Then came bus deregulation, and independent buses quickly started up running into the city itself. So now there was a choice. Guess what happened? The Metro hub approach was abandoned by the customers in droves, they far preferred a direct one-seat bus ride. The public authority held out for a while, but in the end gave in, and did the same.

I agree Gateshead was a mistake, but the other Metro-bus interchanges were much further out and interchange made more sense, although the walk between the bus and the Metro was much longer than it often is in the Continental cities that have made integration work (quick interchange being much easier with trams).

For a commercial bus operator in a deregulated environment, it makes sense to try to carry passengers the longest distance on their own service, and by not participating in integrated ticketing they provided a financial incentive for passengers to do that. But with public or franchised operation the lowest cost to the public purse is had by maximising the use of the Metro mode with its relatively high fixed cost but much lower marginal cost per extra passenger carried. Experience in the Continental cities that are the subject of this thread suggest that integration, when done right, can be attractive to passengers.

 

[johncrossley]

The Tyne & Wear Metro was an example of not how to do it. The transport academics devised an approach where city-radial buses were diverted to Metro hubs instead, the last leg being (after going up and down steps, and waiting) on the new Metro. Even at Gateshead, from where you could see the city centre buildings just across the river.

Then came bus deregulation, and independent buses quickly started up running into the city itself. So now there was a choice. Guess what happened? The Metro hub approach was abandoned by the customers in droves, they far preferred a direct one-seat bus ride. The public authority held out for a while, but in the end gave in, and did the same.

In that case there was a clear financial incentive for bus companies to ignore the metro because they would then get the whole fare, instead of having to share revenue with the metro. The bus company finances were (and still are) separate from the metro. Whereas in a normal urban transport system, the authority receives the revenue from all modes regardless.

You could make the argument in any situation for extending buses to the city centre on any of the routes, and in any of the cities discussed earlier in this thread. If that hypothetical extension happened, you would see some, possibly many people continuing to sit on the bus instead of changing. You could then play the "Gateshead card" to claim that the extension was justified. But one factor that is never taken into account in this kind of discussion is the extra cost involved in the extension. In other words, what other services have to be cancelled to pay for it? Conversely, by truncating a bus service and forcing a change onto a metro system, you release funds that potentially could be used to improve services elsewhere.

 

[Re 4/4]

In Zurich, the ZVV ("zurich traffic union") orders and pays for local transport on behalf of the canton, and the SBB and VBZ (bus and tram company) then run the routes.

This is a political point, but I think Zurich works so well exactly because the operator does not have to make a profit under anything close to free market conditions.

The fact that Zurich is one of the richest cities in the world doesn't hurt either.

 

[johncrossley]

This is a political point, but I think Zurich works so well exactly because the operator does not have to make a profit under anything close to free market conditions.

This could be said for most transport authorities in the developed world.

The fact that Zurich is one of the richest cities in the world doesn't hurt either.

Yet they run their network in an economical way. They could easily afford to extend all buses to the city centre, instead of making passengers change onto trams in the suburbs. Therefore we can presume that they have worked out that such extensions would be counter-productive.

 

[Austriantrain]

Yet they run their network in an economical way. They could easily afford to extend all buses to the city centre, instead of making passengers change onto trams in the suburbs. Therefore we can presume that they have worked out that such extensions would be counter-productive.

It’s not just (pretty basic) economics; no one in their right mind would want lots and lots of buses running parallel to a high-capacity, emissions-free and quiet transport mode, at least not if you want your cities to actually remain vibrant. So it’s also common sense, and that’s why this model has expanded all over Europe and to lots of other places, and very successfully too, vastly increasing public transport‘s modal share.

 

[johncrossley]

It’s not just (pretty basic) economics; no one in their right mind would want lots and lots of buses running parallel to a high-capacity, emissions-free and quiet transport mode

Except the UK! For example, this tram line in Manchester opened in 2013. The tram line largely follows the 216 bus route, however the 216 still runs frequently (at least every 10 minutes) during the day, and offers lower fares than the tram, especially now a £2 fare cap has been implemented on buses in Greater Manchester. The tram route is slightly different, taking a different route past Manchester City football ground, and the bus stops are closer together.

You can also see that buses 230 and 231 follow almost same route in this part of the map, except they use Every Street instead of Pollard Street. These run every 30 minutes each, every 15 minutes combined on the common section of route. The 230 and 231 routes diverge from the tram route and the 216 bus route further east (off this snippet of the map, but can be seen by loading the full map - link below). My hunch is that it is highly unlikely that buses 230 and 231 would run on this section of route in somewhere like Zurich. Even before the tram line opened, they duplicated the 216 on this part of the map. Now that there is also a tram, do you really need the tram, 216, 230 and 231 buses on this section of route?

Because of bus deregulation, the transport authority cannot force the bus company to stop running these bus routes. However, bus franchising will come into force in this part of Manchester in 2025. There is speculation that rationalisation will occur after that. If you look at the Buses section of this forum, some forum members are concerned about these rationalisations and are fully committed to keeping existing direct links.

https://assets.ctfassets.net/nv7y93idf4jq/3GyoZZkGFgoEMuqHEjQzGG/fdc4d156d41a1e91ea7127a384fc60f0/Manchester_South_map__1_.pdf

 

[fandroid]

There's nothing wrong with running a bus route alongside a metro or tram, as long as the bus stops are rather more frequent than the parallel line ones.

It's not just Zurich where through tickets are normal and an overall authority sets the prices and redistributes the fare income. As far as I know this system is universal in Germany (the Verkehrverbund system) and can apply well outside big cities too.

To some extent, Nottingham seems to operate a system of bus routes complimentary to the trams. It slightly irritates me that the frequent buses passing the City Hospital all terminate at or do a terminal loop near the Victoria Centre (on the north side of the city centre). To get to the railway station on the south side I have to walk to a tram stop and catch a tram. I understand that there's a sort of city centre loop bus route, but I've never used it.

 

[johncrossley]

There's nothing wrong with running a bus route alongside a metro or tram, as long as the bus stops are rather more frequent than the parallel line ones.

Was it therefore a mistake to build the tram stops so far apart? If you have to keep running the existing bus services that means you don't gain operating cost savings, and you might even have higher costs than before the tram opened. You might save a little money by reducing the bus frequency, but in this case the buses are still frequent.

When new tramways and metros are built in other countries it almost always means a reorganisation of bus routes. As mentioned, this method of network design is successful in terms of patronage levels, despite it being controversial in the UK.

In the above example you also have the situation of multiple bus routes converging on the same corridor, which is normal practice in the UK, but often not outside the UK, clearly evident by looking at network plans. An alternative would be to terminate the 230 and 231 at the point where it meets the 216, or divert the 230 and 231 in another direction to provide additional connectivity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Tyne & Wear Metro was an example of not how to do it. The transport academics devised an approach where city-radial buses were diverted to Metro hubs instead, the last leg being (after going up and down steps, and waiting) on the new Metro. Even at Gateshead, from where you could see the city centre buildings just across the river.

Gateshead was a bit of a silly example often used to discredit the policy. But this policy more widely is the norm, and works superbly, in German speaking cities at least (and in the UK to a fairly large extent in London, and there are examples elsewhere like Merseyside, where for instance local circular buses connect Maghull with its railway station and don't run though to Liverpool). It's both faster for most people and cheaper to operate than slow, direct bus services from everywhere to everywhere.

I would expect to see Manchester shifting towards this model post regulation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2023 ==

Was it therefore a mistake to build the tram stops so far apart?

It's of note that in Germany urban bus stops are typically about 0.5km apart with considerable thought put into their location and what they are intended to serve and interchange with, whereas UK ones tend to be 100-200m apart often with very little thought.

 

[daodao]

Was it therefore a mistake to build the tram stops so far apart?

The stop spacing on Manchester Metrolink is greater than on many light rail systems because of its use of high platforms, as much of the original system used former suburban rail lines with standard British rail high platforms. Therefore, constructing new stops on the street-running lines was both difficult in certain places due to space constraints as well as relatively expensive, so a number of stops originally proposed on these lines were designed out before construction began, e.g on the Airport line. Thus in many areas, while bus services have reduced, they have not disappeared completely.

 

[edwin_m]

To some extent, Nottingham seems to operate a system of bus routes complimentary to the trams. It slightly irritates me that the frequent buses passing the City Hospital all terminate at or do a terminal loop near the Victoria Centre (on the north side of the city centre). To get to the railway station on the south side I have to walk to a tram stop and catch a tram. I understand that there's a sort of city centre loop bus route, but I've never used it.

Not really. The "City Loop" you mention consists of routes 5 to 11 running every few minutes to connect all the other bus stops with the railway station. It's more frequent than the tram, though perhaps slightly slower, and the NCT single operator fare applies so it will cost less than a separate tram ticket or contactless touch-in. Hence there's no need for a NCT passenger to use a tram to complete their journey within the city centre, and it can't really be said that there is any service integration between these operators.

Nottingham essentially has three overlapping but separate radial transport networks: NCT, TrentBarton (which joins up even worse in the centre) and the tram. There is limited ticket interavailability but it always costs more to use multiple operators, with no significant time saving, so unlikely anyone would do so if they could complete their journey on a single operator. There used to be some buses in Hucknall that partly operated as tram feeders, but they don't appear to do so any more.