johncrossley
Established Member
You don't have much of a choice of destination if you restrict yourself to locations that can only be reached by direct bus.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should buses (and public transport in general) be a "safety net" or a tool to cut congestion?
- Thread starter johncrossley
- Start date
You don't have much of a choice of destination if you restrict yourself to locations that can only be reached by direct bus.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I'm not talking about new railways, I'm talking about the existing ones. The existing ones cost more to staff, maintain and procure new rolling stock for. If we suddenly reduce the cost of trains to the same level as buses... where does this gap in funding come from?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'd argue direct buses are much less restrictive than direct trains.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That isn't the nub of my argument, though.
My argument is:
1. The ideal would be that buses are not subsidised to a super-low fare as per the £2 scheme. Instead, those who through an aspect of their demographic cannot afford normal fares receive free or discounted travel accordingly. This is how it's usually done in places like Germany.
2. If (1) isn't feasible, we have to put up with bus being cheaper than rail, but if a bus journey is required to/from the station for an urban journey the overall through journey should cost the same as the same length journey would cost were it made entirely by rail. The rough, easily implemented proxy for this somewhere like London given actual usage patterns on such journeys is the bus journey being free if a rail journey tap in/out has occurred within an hour of it starting. The implementation of that on Oyster/contactless is to refund a bus journey if a rail journey starts within an hour of the first bus tap-in of a Hopper fare, and for ending a rail journey to effectively start a Hopper fare without charge.
I'm not arguing for rail fares to reduce to £2, though there are odd cases where they perhaps should (see also the acceptance of free passes on the Conwy Valley Line which enabled money to be saved by not duplicating it with a bus service).
johncrossley
Established Member
From my local stop I can reach about 40 other bus stops by direct bus. That's about 0.2% of the bus stops in London, and an even smaller proportion of stops in the UK. I'd rather have more of a choice of places to go so I accept that I might need to change buses and/or trains. To have any hope of getting people out of cars, changing has to be as attractive as possible. Many if not most trips in the cities with high public transport mode share require at least one change.
Okay, so taking this argument as I am unlikely to qualify for free travel and I want to travel from where I live in South Leicester to Market Harborough which is both served by a direct train and direct bus this is your suggestion.
Current situation:
* Bus Only - £6 (anytime) return - takes about an hour each way, stops pretty much right outside my door.
* Multi mode - Bus + Train - bus is £3 to town, then train is £13.90 (off peak) return - total travel time is 30 minutes (15+15) but doesn't account for waiting at the station.
In your solution both the bus and the train should cost the same? I'm really not following your logic on this?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
And probably a load of places you don't want to go! Probably three of those stops are useful - home, the town centre and your nearest supermarket?
From Bletchley I can take a direct train to Birmingham or London, both of which are places I want to go, and a few other places which I probably don't want to go but some people might. Whereas most bus stops on a route are origins, typically there are only a couple of destinations, often only one (the town centre).
It's been proven time and time again that changing modes of transport is always a barrier.
Also, the fact you live in London clearly changes your experience as actually doing multi modal is possible there!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The multi modal journey should cost £13.90. And it probably would if your local journey into Leicester to connect to the intercity train was by rail rather than bus.
See the issue? You are actively penalised to the tune of £6 for not having a local railway station.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Because it's the one place in the UK where, fares aside, it's actually done properly!
johncrossley
Established Member
Only because it is done badly in the UK. As I just said, look at the cities in Europe with high public transport modal share. Changing is a routine thing that people do. It is not a big deal.
It isn't just about multi-modal though. Changing between buses, or between trains is important as well.
I'm not penalised for not having a railway station. You can't have a railway station in every small town otherwise the trains become just as slow as the bus as they stop everywhere.
However, in this instance I would always take the bus, even if the multi-modal fare was £13.90 rather than £19.90, saving 30 minutes is not worth doubling the fare and the bus is direct.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm not suggesting there should be one. I'm suggesting that the fare between <all points in town A> and <all points in town B> should be the same regardless of the number of modes or changes involved. Or between any two points the same distance apart within a town.
And when it comes to rail, at least on walk up tickets or when using one TOC (&connections Advances are usually priced up very slightly), that usually is the case. Just not if you bring buses into the argument.
But why should I, who is going from the centre of town A to centre of town B using one bus pay the same as Fred who is going from the outskirts of town A in to town A, then going to centre of town B and then to the outskirts of town B? I've used one vehicle with one staff member versus Fred who has had 3 vehicles and 3 staff members.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Because you are both making journeys on a public transport system. You aren't (or shouldn't be) purchasing individual vehicle rides. The journey is from boarding the first vehicle to leaving the last one.
That's what the UK culture fails to understand. The lack of a direct service is an inconvenience that is the nature of operating such a system, not something the user wants. We understand and accept it within the rail system, why not bus?
Plus the car doesn't price in this way. It would if I drove via the town centres, but why would I?
The car does price in this way, it prices per mile (fuel) so if I drive further (from the outskirts of town A to the outskirts of town B versus centre of town A to town B.)
Do we understand it in the rail system though? There's plenty of examples where travelling between two points on trains is offered at different prices and I'm not sure bus users really want the complications of the rail fare system to be imposed on them.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Only if the journey is further by distance, though. I'm not forced to elongate it by travelling via both town centres.
Generally rail walk up fares are priced zonally (sort of) even though that isn't visible to the user. For instance Bletchley to Birmingham is the same price as MKC to Birmingham. This is seen all over the network and has been for years.
And yet, also on the network you have Rugby to London costing much less if you use one TOC versus the other even though you're travelling essentially exactly the same distance.
And I might be paying a completely different price the other person sitting next to me on the same train because they didn't buy in advance or because they're using split ticketting.
Rail is certainly not the bastion of fair fares you make it out to be.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm not. I'm advocating a specific aspect of it, for the purposes of integration.
Whilst ignoring the parts that don't support your argument!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
And the problem is? I'm saying how it should work based on an example of how one aspect of rail is.
Because you're saying something should work like X, when X doesn't really work like that at all - just one small part of it does work like that, sometimes, but not always...
stevieinselby
Established Member
I suspect it's more a belief that no-one who has access to a car would ever choose by bus, and so the market segment they are aiming at is "last resort" – and so there is no point in them trying to provide an attractive service but they should instead focus on the lowest common denominator and be as cheap as possible.
To be clear, that isn't a view that I agree with in any way (and sorry to KHCT if I've misrepresented their position).
JGurney
Member
Neither do I. My own social circle is not large but I know several people who own cars and also use buses. Their reasons vary from one person to another but include:
- intending to be drinking alcohol while out and about.
- parking difficuties at the destination.
- going to a station or airport and not wanting to leave their car there for days or weeks.
- environmental concerns.
- disliking driving in the dark.
- fares being cheaper than driving plus parking.
- wanting to see the scenery, etc, from the upper deck.
- getting a bus from A to B, hiking B to C then bus from C back to A (to avoid having to make circular walks back to the same car park).
- using their village bus route to reduce the chances of it getting cut.
- wanting their children to have some supervised experience of bus use, prior to starting to use buses by themselves.
- nostalgia (bus use having been a feature of their childhood).
- being bus enthusiasts.
Plus some who, like myself, can drive and could afford a car but don't want one.
To state the obvious, outside of London, buses aren't even a safety net anymore. That's why motability and taxi apps have been wildly popular.
I do not know the specifics, but I dare say it is trivially easy to show that even if disability wasn't a factor, the current bus services are insufffient for even most available employment opportunities, let alone living a life that is as healthy, active and stimulating as the government says is ideal for maximum productivity.
I know people who would rather pay astronomical amounts on Uber, than allow the current provision of bus services, even in cities, be a factor in their daily working lives. It's insane.
This is why it's so depressing to see such little concern for the fact the reopened Northumberland line was envisioned and designed for car users and those who can afford taxis or have access to lifts, than those who would arrive via other means, including buses.
It's also a reason to be depressed if Burnham doesn't make serious progress on ensuring the regions outside London unlock their full potential, of which greatly enhanced public transport, cheifly buses given the contraints on rail and other modes requiring infrastructure, are the key area of the fastest and most transformational growth opportunity.
Traffic congestion being the biggest single issue, clearly, followed by a basic lack of services in general.
I do not know the specifics, but I dare say it is trivially easy to show that even if disability wasn't a factor, the current bus services are insufffient for even most available employment opportunities, let alone living a life that is as healthy, active and stimulating as the government says is ideal for maximum productivity.
I know people who would rather pay astronomical amounts on Uber, than allow the current provision of bus services, even in cities, be a factor in their daily working lives. It's insane.
This is why it's so depressing to see such little concern for the fact the reopened Northumberland line was envisioned and designed for car users and those who can afford taxis or have access to lifts, than those who would arrive via other means, including buses.
It's also a reason to be depressed if Burnham doesn't make serious progress on ensuring the regions outside London unlock their full potential, of which greatly enhanced public transport, cheifly buses given the contraints on rail and other modes requiring infrastructure, are the key area of the fastest and most transformational growth opportunity.
Traffic congestion being the biggest single issue, clearly, followed by a basic lack of services in general.
Had a disagreement with a councillor recently of a town council funding free travel on a Sunday on town services (when non have ever existed) which said 550 people used it 52.7% more than a Saturday and what a success it was, but wasn't to happy with me that i pointed out the reason why it was done was due a food and drink festival!
She also claimed a nearby town free travel for a special event, new passengers used buses in a week
She also claimed a nearby town free travel for a special event, new passengers used buses in a week
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
Why so negative? Most bus depots are practically empty by 0800 (on weekdays): who is using those buses? Concessionary passes aren't valid at that time and schoolkids certainly aren't filling all those buses. Your location is apparently Reading: perhaps you should spend some time observing the operations of your local bus company and then try suggesting that people don't use buses to travel to/from work.
Obviously we don't have a command economy that could dictate how people travel though I get the impression you would be happy if that was indeed the case. Nevertheless buses are being actively chosen by many. Indeed more people travel by bus each day than by train. I don't believe all those people have no choice.
I'm no longer in Reading, which obviously has a much better bus service than on average, and for obvious reasons. I live in a big city, and it's laughable to suggest that the buses are taking anywhere what they could be. They very much are a last resort.
Schoolkids are most definitely the primary users of public buses before 8 where I now live, to the point it's clear valuable road space, depot capacity and staffing, is being wasted on these twice a day affairs.
I had to undetake an unusual journey of a morning a while back. I was going to need a tendered service that, presumably simply because it uses well travelled routes except a middle section, my destination, only has a pathetic frequency, absolutely ridiculous. If using it for work, it's likely a one shot deal, if using it at all. Tricky at a time when bus services haven't exacly been reliable.
It leaves from a major bus station, so it has to be at its right bay on time. The wrinke there being, the higher frequency turn up and go morning routes were clearly not running to time, most likely due to congestion or roadworks, although the commercial operator has also had staffing issues.
So there were buses in the bay that should not have been there, and in adjacent bays too. But in a city where car parks and pidgeons/drifters are given first and second refusal over any spare real estate, what else can they do but jam up a public resource? It's tough to find a place to park a service bus for 10 minutes.
Even these peak time buses, double deckers, were only taking moderate loads, maybe a quarter full. My bus was a tiny midibus, and you soon saw why. With no bus in sight a good few minutes after its departure time, all too late, I realised it had pulled in to a bay far up the station, maybe five or six up, totally obscured by other buses and the general visual clutter that is common in bus stations these days.
Up to and including totally useless information screens saying my bus was due to leave from that bay at the allotted time, and all the paper timetables anyone who still believes in fairies and unicorns, could ever need.
As I saw the lady driving it merrilly past me, enjoying her day, I saw her bus was completely empty. It had apparently not occurred to her that anything was wrong with this picture. The only conclusion to be drawn is that it is perfectly normal for her to be transporting fresh air, certainly on this departure, and perhaps pretty much all day.
The joke in all this? The section of road that is only served by that bus route and a handful of other pretty low frequency tendered routes, runs the full length of a major industrial estate, and a couple of major factories.
It is beyond clear that it's there as a last resort option for people who are really stuck, temporarily without a car, no access to a lift, and unable to afford a taxi. The routing of two of the four busss makes it clear they only really even go along that road because there's a major supermarket there.
There is a rail option, but it's at the far end of the estate. That presumably doesn't matter, because the buses are so infrequent, you'd be able to walk the full length before the next bus arrived.
I wasn't too inconvenenced by this thoughtless bus driver. I'd had to leave so early to even use that ridiculous option, that even the second option of a 5 minute walk to the station, the 15 minute wait for a train, the 10 minute train journey, and the 12 minute walk the length of the trading estate, got me there just about on time.
But I am able bodied and well versed in how to navigate the various apps, machines and stops/platforms needed for such an ad hoc journey.
Bearing in mind that was only half the journey, there being an inbound 20 minute bus ride bus needed too, well, frankly, if you have the option of taking a car/lift/taxi, which is a mere 25 minute run, or at most at the very worst peak traffic, 35 minutes end to end, literally door to door, you'd have to be crazy to willingly choose the bus.
The bus is the last resort. Even the sparse number of stops along that road is clearly all about saving the council money and not inconveniencing the private traffic running along it too much.
They know there are people who need to make this journey end to end, for work. There is a once a day worker's bus, early doors, which runs along tje same route a car would, so is attractive, but it terminates at an office block a 20 minute walk away. It's also packed to capacity. So packed, it usually runs terribly late, so anyone planning on using it to get to work with even a generous contingency, is in for an uncomfortable time of it.
Everyone knows this is the crap state of affairs. Nobody is in any great rush to improve it. Managed decline.
I now see there has been a doubling of frequency since I used it. No doubt some money was found, presumably from a national grant, not any great changes in the local situation. How long that lasts, is anyone's guess. If nobody uses the bus, it will likely be withdrawn. This is no way to persuade car drivers the bus is a viable, let alone attractive, option.
stevieinselby
Established Member
Hyperbole much? Millions of people in towns and cities across the country find the bus network to be adequate for their needs.
I live in Portsmouth. The bus service has been improved beyond recognition by the very pro-active council using BSIP money wisely. Services now run frequently from very early, 4am to past midnight on Mondays to Thursdays and until 3am on Fridays & Saturday nights. Plus there are now 2, 24-hour services, 7 days a week. The service has never been better! More bus priority has been put in to speed buses up. The trains from my local station from the outskirts of the city into Portsmouth on the other hand are useless. 2 trains within 14 minutes in both directions and calls on other services (GWR) taken out, so it becomes a no brainer for people to use the bus over train to the city now.
I can sympathise with the rant about the bus station. Its an issue that I have seen at Wycombe although buses do tend to find a bay close to their allotted one. Imagine if the railway just showed the timetabled departures on the PIS and ignored anything running out of course.