Does it matter if bus services reduce car usage but not car ownership?

[Gingerbus1991]

Government policy over many years has been to encourage car ownership (that isn't what they say, however it's what they do). Things like freezing the fuel duty at the same time as reducing the tax rebate for bus operation for example).
Unfortunately, other than London, emission zones will just penalise public transport users. Glasgow is a classic example, buses have to obey it however taxis, cars, vans don't. Bus companies have increased costs, everybody else dosent.
Some councils might be trying to increase the costs of using a car however they'll face the full fury of the press and the present Govermment never will.

Our authorities and government seem torn between what is right and what is easy, fueling bus usage is right yet the motor car is easy.

If bus travel was subsidised to a better extent I feel many bus operates would just pony the dough as profit as opposed to putting that back to keeping fares low(much lower than now).

Yes I agree that everyone should be included from the start, buses, cars, vans and all..

On a side note, while alot of country look to Mr Trump, Yong-un, and putin as being dictators they put there foot down which I do like, provided they were making the right decisions.

 

[fowler9]

Alright fair enough guys.

 

[Gingerbus1991]

But that wasn't what the original thread was about, which was about car usage and car ownership. Those cars are being used to get to the work car park, as opposed to people who have a car and leave it parked outside their front door all day.

Most factories and warehouses are in the outskirts anyway, which are really hard to get to by public transport. If the company chooses to offer a car park, that's their choice. They might find that without it they wouldn't be able to get the right quality of staff. I had a job many years ago were driving was the only way I could get there. Thankfully since then I've not had to drive to work.

Car usage simplified.

Most have one, most use them and most would never ever do with out one again, most use them for work, most use them for even the shortest of only a 5 minute walk.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The effect of urban planning is often overplayed, usually used as an excuse why things can't be done in English speaking countries, .

They make great play of it in the DAC in Copenhagen - very interesting. They even have a lovely picture of Maggie Thatcher and her views on society and they do cite how they have managed planning to improve quality of life and transport is fundamental to that.

 

[radamfi]

They make great play of it in the DAC in Copenhagen - very interesting. They even have a lovely picture of Maggie Thatcher and her views on society and they do cite how they have managed planning to improve quality of life and transport is fundamental to that.

Obviously you would say that proper investment in local public transport will never happen, but are you saying that it is impossible to get people to leave cars at home in the UK even if an attractive public transport system on a par with the best in the world was provided?

 

[Ianno87]

If bus travel was subsidised to a better extent I feel many bus operates would just pony the dough as profit as opposed to putting that back to keeping fares low(much lower than now).

Does remind me of visiting Santander (Spain, not the bank) - all the local buses (presumably local authority managed) were basically a €1 flat single fare - and the effect on ridership was obvious.

Make the cost of bus travel inconsequential (to most) and simple, and people will use them.

But would never work in the current UK bus industry structure and funding.

 

[radamfi]

Government policy over many years has been to encourage car ownership (that isn't what they say, however it's what they do).

But there is also high car ownership in many other countries. Some countries may tax the purchase of new cars but it doesn't stop many people from buying one. At best, they will buy a secondhand car instead. However, allowing or even encouraging people to buy cars doesn't mean they can't also invest heavily in public transport. Notably, the country most famous for high usage of public transport, Switzerland, also has one of the highest car ownership rates in the world.

 

[6Gman]

The really crazy thing to do is own a car for 5,000 miles a year or less and have a new or fairly new car every three years. As you could probably get taxis for the same amount that you are spending. OK, probably not taxis for all your travel but you could use them for a lot of short trips and use other public transport for the longer journeys (even if it was a taxi ride at each end).

I probably fall into that category. My wife and I do about 6,000 miles pa and own two cars (but we don't change at 3 year intervals). The reason is simple - convenience.

I work in the evenings. To travel by bus would mean a walk of over a mile (no pavement) ... oh, hang on they've just withdrawn the evening bus.

Getting a taxi to work would be an option. But given that my work can end at anything between 9 and 10.30 ringing for a taxi at that time of night could be pretty futile. (Have I mentioned that there's a poor mobile phone reception where I work)

So perhaps I'm not really "crazy".

 

[6Gman]

These new lease contracts people have are mad. People half my age are driving Audis and Mercs just out of school. Just not sustainable and it will all come crashing down like the housing market.

Generally reckoned it could cause the next big financial crisis.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Obviously you would say that proper investment in local public transport will never happen, but are you saying that it is impossible to get people to leave cars at home in the UK even if an attractive public transport system on a par with the best in the world was provided?

Obviously I would - what evidence do you have to suggest that the UK will begin to invest properly (i.e. would this be to the same levels as Denmark or the Netherlands?)?

However, I am not saying that investment to create a globally leading public transport system won't get some people to leave their cars at home or to increase patronage from non car users. It undoubtedly would - even reducing fares to European levels will drive that through price elasticity of demand before anything else.

However, will you see comparable levels of public transport usage by delivering that in isolation. No, for the reasons that were outlined by the Danes themselves.

 

[fowler9]

Generally reckoned it could cause the next big financial crisis.

Do you reckon 18 year olds driving around in high end cars is sustainable?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Generally reckoned it could cause the next big financial crisis.

By whom?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you reckon 18 year olds driving around in high end cars is sustainable?

You don't see many 18 year olds driving round in high end cars. Even if they were free they wouldn't be able to afford to insure them.

(A BMW 1 Series is not a high end car)

 

[The Ham]

I probably fall into that category. My wife and I do about 6,000 miles pa and own two cars (but we don't change at 3 year intervals). The reason is simple - convenience.

I work in the evenings. To travel by bus would mean a walk of over a mile (no pavement) ... oh, hang on they've just withdrawn the evening bus.

Getting a taxi to work would be an option. But given that my work can end at anything between 9 and 10.30 ringing for a taxi at that time of night could be pretty futile. (Have I mentioned that there's a poor mobile phone reception where I work)

So perhaps I'm not really "crazy".

If suggest that you just fall outside of what I was taking about. Mostly because you do use your car for getting to and from work.

 

[Gingerbus1991]

You don't see many 18 year olds driving round in high end cars. Even if they were free they wouldn't be able to afford to insure them.

(A BMW 1 Series is not a high end car)

I donot have contempt for young induviduals who can afford a nice car, a 1-series is particualrly more expensive than say a fiesta is.

 

[Mikey C]

Car usage simplified.

Most have one, most use them and most would never ever do with out one again, most use them for work, most use them for even the shortest of only a 5 minute walk.

A pretty simplistic summary, especially in London and the Southeast, where I imagine an awful lot of cars are either left at home, or at most are just driven to the railway station.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[Gingerbus1991]

And yet Hasselt (Belgium) gave up on their free bus project after a few years as, despite all trips within the city being free, it simply wasn't having the expected impact on ridership or congestion.

I'd like to see somewhere in the UK try a Hasselt-style project, with entirely free bus services, because I think it would prove that the usual argument that "buses are too expensive" is not the real reason people don't use the buses. In fact I believe that in most UK cities if buses ran every 10 minutes 24/7/365 at no charge to the user, most people would still jump in their cars. It's habitual, and they're not going to change the habit of a lifetime.

Correct

 

[bluenoxid]

Oh this is all interesting!

But would never work in the current UK bus industry structure and funding.

Current structure is hampering innovation and passenger number growth outside London.

By whom?

Paul Lewis presenter of Money Box is touting a view that the market for car finance is a risk. It won’t be the cause of the next crash but it is likely to exacerbate issues.

The reason is that people appear to not be putting money away to cover the balloon payment at the end or cover substantial differences. If your circumstances change so you cannot afford to move to a new vehicle payment plan, you can have really substantial problems particularly if you have completed excessive miles.

The other issue is if your circumstances change in the middle of the contract. We all know that the value of a vehicle drops when you drive it off the forecourt. If you lose a high mileage job and can no longer afford your lovely saloon car, it can be incredibly expensive to buy yourself out of your agreement.

Like everything, it is down to personal circumstances but if lots of people have the same problem at once, finance companies in the car sector could be faced with a double whammy of reduced demand for new loans and defaults.

 

[Dai Corner]

An anecdotal view on whether making buses free would reduce car ownership or usage.

I live near a large (200+ flats) development for the over 60s. It's social housing rather than privately owned. As we're in Wales all the residents will be entitled to free bus travel. There are bus stops right outside with eight buses an hour to the city centre.

When I first came to the area in 2002 there were few cars in the car park. Now it's full.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the problems with buses is that they generally do just go to the city centre - any other journey involves going in and back out and thus is basically non-viable. UK bus operators seem not interested in planning genuine connectional networks unlike in other countries (and still dissuade connectional travel via the fares system being per-vehicle rather than per-journey, time based or point-to-point, all of which are more common than per-vehicle in other countries), and that, if you're not in a position to cycle, walk or pay the high cost of taxis for non-city-centre journeys, makes a car a necessity in many towns and cities, particularly larger ones.

 

[radamfi]

There is no need to make transport free. Single fares in Switzerland aren't cheap although they have the famous good value annual GA ticket for unlimited travel nationwide. The question is whether you would get more people out of their cars by spending money on improved services rather than subsidising fares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is no need to make transport free. Single fares in Switzerland aren't cheap although they have the famous good value annual GA ticket for unlimited travel nationwide. The question is whether you would get more people out of their cars by spending money on improved services rather than subsidising fares.

What you might also find is that accepting contactless on a touch in/touch out basis makes people think less about what they are spending on fares and thus more likely to travel as long as the fare is vaguely reasonable, which mostly they are. (Bus operators mostly seem not to take the mick on fares despite being natural monopolies in most places).

That psychological effect works on cars in a similar way - you maybe put in £50 of fuel ever so often, you don't fuel up for one small local journey each time, and thus don't have an appreciation of its cost (least of all the other costs like brake lining wear).

 

[Dai Corner]

One of the problems with buses is that they generally do just go to the city centre - any other journey involves going in and back out and thus is basically non-viable. UK bus operators seem not interested in planning genuine connectional networks unlike in other countries (and still dissuade connectional travel via the fares system being per-vehicle rather than per-journey, time based or point-to-point, all of which are more common than per-vehicle in other countries), and that, if you're not in a position to cycle, walk or pay the high cost of taxis for non-city-centre journeys, makes a car a necessity in many towns and cities, particularly larger ones.

It's worth mentioning that in this case three of the buses go to the next, much larger , city and a fourth to a number of neighbouring towns.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

One of the problems with buses is that they generally do just go to the city centre - any other journey involves going in and back out and thus is basically non-viable. UK bus operators seem not interested in planning genuine connectional networks unlike in other countries (and still dissuade connectional travel via the fares system being per-vehicle rather than per-journey, time based or point-to-point, all of which are more common than per-vehicle in other countries), and that, if you're not in a position to cycle, walk or pay the high cost of taxis for non-city-centre journeys, makes a car a necessity in many towns and cities, particularly larger ones.

We have discussed this at some length.

UK bus operators are driven by a commercial imperative and that involves running services that make money. Buses work best at moving people along established corridors and in many towns and cities, that is on core trunk routes into the town centre; that is where the critical mass of people wish to travel to/from.

Now, there are obviously a myriad of many other journeys that people need to make. That is without question. However, if you take Bristol as an example - you can travel across the whole city for £4 on a day ticket, or less with a (£3.40 a day) with a week ticket. In the last two years, two relatively significant routes that traverse the northern periphery have been axed - one had been upgraded with better vehicles (think there was LA funds to support that) and then new vehicles and extended. It also passed through key nodes such as Southmead Hospital and Bristol Parkway. Yet it still couldn't pay.

Bus travel in the city is booming overall. However, despite this, tertiary services in Bristol are still on the retreat.

 

[radamfi]

Now, there are obviously a myriad of many other journeys that people need to make. That is without question. However, if you take Bristol as an example - you can travel across the whole city for £4 on a day ticket, or less with a (£3.40 a day) with a week ticket. In the last two years, two relatively significant routes that traverse the northern periphery have been axed - one had been upgraded with better vehicles (think there was LA funds to support that) and then new vehicles and extended. It also passed through key nodes such as Southmead Hospital and Bristol Parkway. Yet it still couldn't pay.

Bus travel in the city is booming overall. However, despite this, tertiary services in Bristol are still on the retreat.

But how frequent and reliable were those non-radial services? A city service at worse than 15 minute daytime frequency isn't going to attract many passengers from their cars. When orbital services are provided in the UK, typically as tendered services, they are often wiggly and indirect to try and serve as many important locations as possible in one route, making them even less attractive. As previously stated many times, you can only get a good mode share for the city as a whole (so not just to the city centre) by designing a network where people can make journeys in a reasonably direct fashion by means of easy and convenient interchange.

Incidentally, what is the public transport mode share of trips within Bristol? It is not particularly meaningful to say that bus travel is "booming" if mode share is still very low, although it sounds good in marketing. For example if mode share went up from 5% to 10%, that would be a doubling, but still very poor. It is also important to know how many people have switched from the car. If the increase is just down to captive bus users travelling more then that's doesn't help much with the key goal of reducing car traffic. City centre passengers may be considered captive due to the expense and hassle of parking.

 

[Bletchleyite]

UK bus operators are driven by a commercial imperative and that involves running services that make money. Buses work best at moving people along established corridors and in many towns and cities, that is on core trunk routes into the town centre; that is where the critical mass of people wish to travel to/from

Agreed, but the problem here is that it still means a car is a necessity if that is not your journey. With limited resources accepting that the car exists and has its purpose is probably the most sensible line (and a taxi is still a car, not only that but a less efficient one as it spends at least some of its time driving around with no passenger in it) - but if the object is to reduce car ownership per the thread title this approach won't do.

The most it will realistically do for the average suburban family is to allow the ownership of one rather than two cars.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Agreed, but the problem here is that it still means a car is a necessity if that is not your journey. With limited resources accepting that the car exists and has its purpose is probably the most sensible line (and a taxi is still a car, not only that but a less efficient one as it spends at least some of its time driving around with no passenger in it) - but if the object is to reduce car ownership per the thread title this approach won't do.

The most it will realistically do for the average suburban family is to allow the ownership of one rather than two cars.

I'd read it that the question the object wasn't to reduce car ownership but car use.

Realistically, once someone has a car, it opens up a range of potential journey opportunities that wouldn't be available before and that the bus (or any public transport) wouldn't be able to satisfy. By definition, bus operators have therefore always focussed on the main flows (even the sepia tinted days of regulation) and these have traditionally been to major traffic objectives. This has usually meant into the centre of town but also you had peripheral routes that served major employers; somewhere like Trafford Park would have had 75,000 workers in the 1950s but that was down to 15,000 in the 1970s. Instead of major employers and a concentration of workers into a small geographic area, they are now scattered across a wealth of smaller business parks and industrial units.

The reality is that in many places (and doubtless equally applicable in Europe) is that peripheral suburban services are not as strong as those into the centre and not sustainable without financial backing. That happens in Europe but, as we're seeing across the UK, what little funding is being cut back.

First in Bristol actually introduced a network of peripheral services in north Bristol - they were originally tendered and operated by Wessex and so they doubtless registered them to help undermine that business. Of those, a number just haven't been sustainable and that's with reasonable fares, investment in newer vehicles and the ability to change at key points. That in a city where bus patronage is strong and growing.

 

[The Ham]

Sometimes pay of the problem is that Council funded routes don't do what people want to do.

I worked on a project where the council suggested that to servea new housing estate that we extenda route that had already gone through two other housing estates.

Conversely we suggested extending a route from the far side of the town which would then run past the hospital and down the key route nearly straight to the site.

The bus company jumped at the second option as it opened up new opportunities (i.e. better connections with the hospital from the other side of town) as well as serving the new site without it taking a significant amount of time to get there.