And if the cost of improving integration is more than the benefit that is accrued (at least in the short to medium term), where is the funding coming from?As mentioned earlier, people don't change between buses and trains that much in the UK because integration is poor. Obviously the whole point of improving integration is to get more people to use public transport. That's the main reason why any public transport improvement is done. The Swiss etc. wouldn't do it if there was no point.
Merely pointing to Switzerland or Netherlands or Germany and saying 'this is how to do it', without coming up with how this is going to work and be funded in the UK context is not much use. It is the hearts and minds of the people, the politicians and planners that need to be won, in order to get the funding and the political buy-in to do things which will be unpopular in some quarters, remembering that there are many to whom public transport is of no interest and the thought that they may be coerced into using it fills them with horror. There is certainly little appetite for the practical application of integration (and its implications and cost) in most of the country. (plenty of hot air though). How much Bus Service Improvement Plan money has gone towards improving integration?
Your favourite public transport countries have evolved differently to ours (both public transport systems and public attitudes towards them) and it will be a difficult (i.e. unpopular) and expensive job to change ours to theirs.
PTEs only covered a small amount of the country - so I guess the rurality of Prestons and Lancasters and Milton Keynes' of this country are 'of less importance' in the integration stakes, and therefore where their bus stations are situated is of a lower priority.There was however in PTE areas, which was lost in 1985. Within PTE areas probably constitutes by far the largest amount of local public transport travel. What happens rurally is of less importance.
Probably because integration only works financially when there is an element of compulsion / coercion to ensure that the most expensive (to build and run) and least flexible rail based systems have the maximum use and revenue allocated to them.Why not offer options and allow the public to choose what best meets their requirements?
Last edited: