Europe looks ahead...

[carlberry]

Ticketing is actually the *most* integrated part of British transport, even though it is so bad, as some integrated tickets exist, albeit usually at a premium. Not only does it cost more to change mode, it even costs more to change vehicle, even with the same bus company! (There are a few companies now offering 60 minute tickets).

But an even bigger problem is services not being coordinated. Buses often don't stop near the railway station. Where you have light rail or metro systems, buses are rarely coordinated and sometimes run in competition. In other countries, it would be normal for buses to feed into key stations with penalty free ticketing. Again, people like @TheGrandWazoo and @carlberry prefer buses to run into city centres running parallel to rail for long distances and only to serve the rail station if convenient.

Again my views are being misquoted, in this case somehow to give the impression I'm the reason that everything doesn't run the way that you want it to in the UK! I don't see what's wrong with parallel services if passengers actually want to use them, often this is because they don't want the issues involved with waiting around for a connection and then having to walk at the other end of the journey as well. I'm not aware that any of the passengers are doing it because I've forced them to in any way, I suspect they'd doing it because they prefer it and it's more convenient.
I presume that you're aware that most of the parallel roads are full of cars because their drivers have also refused to follow your basic requirement of not stopping their journey at the nearest railway station and waiting for the 'correct' mode of transport to proceed.
The thing that's stopping your transport utopia in the UK is money, the UK doesn't like spending it on public services, has less to spend than it's had before and transport comes fairly low down the list in priorities. Again, none of those are issues that I've caused!

 

[johncrossley]

Again my views are being misquoted

But your following words confirm what I said.

I am highlighting to our friends in other countries that it is not just a lack of resources preventing integrated transport in the UK. Our own people actively campaign against it!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

In this context it means no single company tickets, even if multiple operator tickets exist alongside, and your views on this have been made clear.



As I said, you don't consider integration as a major priority. Which would be considered strange to most non-UK Europeans reading this.

Now apologies for my tardiness in responding to this. I was busy yesterday, out and about on a multi-operator bus ticket, somewhat ironically.

Firstly, @carlberry and @RT4038 are big enough, old enough and ugly enough to defend themselves and indeed, @carlberry has already responded. However, I'll get the personal stuff out of the way. It is a total misrepresentation of earlier posts to suggest that, in some way, I am against coordination or integration either inter or intra mode. In fact, @johncrossley, you find the post of mine that says so.

You are a proponent of franchising for a number of reasons, and one of those is for integration. I am not against improved intra or inter modal integration - got that? However, there is a view that franchising, in and of itself alone, is somehow a silver bullet for this and the wider woes of public transport. The two things, that I think you're getting confused about are this:

• It isn't that integration isn't laudable or would be welcomed by passengers. It is, and this is backed up by empirical research etc, is that for many passengers, it is not the priority. Their priority is reliability - will the bus or train that I am expecting to catch actually arrive, and will it be on time so that get to work or be at whatever sporting or entertainment event for the start. This is followed by a reasonable travelling environment, information and safety, and this is backed up by the latest rail passenger survey https://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.n.../TF-Rail-passenger-priorities-July20_link.pdf - intra-mode integration doesn't even get into the top 10 issues and integration with other modes is lower than that.
• So the point is that it's all well and good talking about integration in Greater Manchester or wherever but there are higher priorities to passengers that aren't being addressed now, and could be addressed now with some braver politicians and willpower. There is no point in having improved connectivity between the bus and Metrolink in Eccles if the bus is still stuck in glue pot traffic conditions on the A57!!!
• Secondly, there is a perception that bus franchising, in and of itself, will deliver the investment that is needed for everything including improved integration. There is some great low hanging fruit that will be available from removing on-street competition and overbussing yet it is evident that the last 20 years have seen a maturing of the market and that operators aren't generally competing and have reduced resources to shore up financials whilst local government budgets have been cut. So there's little fruit to be picked, there's the cost of managing the exercise/operators, more buses and improved connectivity that doesn't penalise passengers (so providing a saving to passengers that must be paid for somehow) and without the "London style" money to fund it?
• That's not being anti-integration - that's being realistic about what funding actually does and remembering that the funds that Greater Manchester is earmarked to receive are for capital spending, not the everyday operations

I would also point out that, in relation to the exemplars that are cited on the continent.... even then, it's wrong to take things in isolation or to assume that Europe is some homogenous lump that is a public transport nirvana. There are some places where integration isn't that great; certainly Italy and Spain isn't to the same standard as Netherlands, Germany or Denmark in terms of being able to have bus/rail integrated ticketing. That's before you head into other spots like the "accession states".

Moreover, the things that Germany, Netherland and Denmark do extend far further than integrated ticketing. They invest in their public transport, to provide alternatives to the private car, but there are wider things; bus priority, road pricing and low emissions zones to dissuade personal car use - there are more in North Rhine-Westphalia emissions zones than in the entire UK. This is classic carrot and stick but in the UK, the RAC is now assuming the position of the gun lobby in the States and we dare not restrict the rights of the motorist. It is also apparent in some of the planning and investment decisions that you see in other countries compared to the UK where the lever of bus priority also reduces road space for cars.

This is all before a personal bugbear of mine. How often do we see investment in car parks at rail stations? In Hampshire and Surrey yesterday, I saw countless examples of investment in car parks. At Farnham, they spent a small fortune to add a further 130 spaces with funding specifically provided by DfT. There's a decent bus network and PlusBus is available but off peak, I could park all day for less than the PlusBus ticket. Go to train station in Netherlands and public transport is front and central, literally, but as we've seen in so many places, we see many times where buses are relegated to a bus stop down the road whilst the forecourt is given over to taxis or "kiss and turn" arrangements or, in the case of Cardiff, they simply flogged the land off. Public bodies doing that, I hasten to add!

Another much vaunted opinion is that bus companies and rail companies are in competition and that's why bus/rail integration isn't better. Well, that's just not true. On shorter journeys (<20 miles), the cost differential is usually so small that it will be speed and convenience that wins, and often, that's a reflection on how well-located stations are. On longer journeys, that differential increases so it is fair to say cost does create market segmentation - hence Megabus and National Express are competing vs rail but local bus really doesn't.

So why bus companies don't do more to serve rail stations? Well, where they can easily do so, they generally do. Unfortunately, our Victorian forebears saw fit to build stations in peripheral locations and serving those simply incurs an additional cost that won't be recovered sufficiently via the farebox. As an example to this, look at a place like Taunton:

• Prior to Covid, it was getting c.1.5m passengers p.a. or just over 4000/day
• It has PlusBus which is valid on First services (but not other firms who are all operating Somerset CC tendered routes)
• It is served by local buses to the north of the town and the Minehead service which does reasonably well as a rail link
• However, the most frequent bus service (Taunton to Wellington) doesn't serve the station and to do so would add at least one extra vehicle into the 4 vehicle diagram
  • Given how bad Taunton traffic is and the relative lack of bus priority, that's possibly optimistic
• To recover that, at an average fare of £3 (possibly understating it but go with for the maths) then to cover the extra bus would require an extra 110 passengers/day - every day and that is a very tall order

Again, you can change this but whether you pay a commercial operator or have franchising, that costs money each and every day and the government aren't paying for that.

So please @johncrossley, don't think that someone is anti-integration when they're not. We just recognise that a) there are greater priorities that we have to put right and b) the problems are systemic and franchising won't suddenly make a bus more reliable; literally, cold comfort when you exit a station and find your bus isn't there as it's stuck in rush hour traffic!

 

[johncrossley]

So please @johncrossley, don't think that someone is anti-integration when they're not. We just recognise that a) there are greater priorities that we have to put right and b) the problems are systemic and franchising won't suddenly make a bus more reliable; literally, cold comfort when you exit a station and find your bus isn't there as it's stuck in rush hour traffic!

But when presented with the easiest options, people still push back. Recent posts show there is far from a universal agreement that there should no longer be single company tickets. Whenever penalty free modal interchange is proposed on the forum, people come back with historical examples like Gateshead in the early 1980s, instead of the vastly more numerous examples of such interchanges that currently exist in Europe and around the world. Neither of those things have anything to do with finances. Truncating bus routes should actually *save* money!

So when people raise objections to even the most fundamental and easiest aspects of integration, that casts doubt on whether they actually really want "European style" integration.

By the way, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of railway stations that aren't ideally situated in mainland Europe.

 

[carlberry]

But your following words confirm what I said.

I am highlighting to our friends in other countries that it is not just a lack of resources preventing integrated transport in the UK. Our own people actively campaign against it!

Absolute rubbish! Thinking that it's better to allow people the choice to use an alternative is not 'actively campaigning against' something. I'm pleased that you somehow think that you somehow think my views have some control over UK government thinking however I don't!

Just to make it completely plain:
Transport integration: Absolutely wonderful, please make sure the money tree is available to implement it. And I'm never going to campaign against it in any country. However offering choice isnt being anti integration, integration should be able making things easier to change modes, not forcing that choice.

The implementation of a rigid system forcing people to change when they don't want or need to: No, this is what caused the Gateshead situation in Tyne and Wear and often turns people off of public transport. I realise you don't like it being brought up however it's an simple example where integration slipped into being a rigid system. The effect of Covid and the wider availability of electric cars over the next few years is going to present a big problem for all public transport systems and making them less attractive to use isn't going to help.

 

[johncrossley]

Absolute rubbish! Thinking that it's better to allow people the choice to use an alternative is not 'actively campaigning against' something. I'm pleased that you somehow think that you somehow think my views have some control over UK government thinking however I don't!

I am using your views as an example. There are many people in the UK with similar views, including people who make decisions. This is why we don't have much integration in the UK. It may seem crazy to people in other countries but they don't realise that many people in the UK object to many aspects of integration as it is implemented in much of mainland Europe.

The implementation of a rigid system forcing people to change when they don't want or need to: No, this is what caused the Gateshead situation in Tyne and Wear and often turns people off of public transport. I realise you don't like it being brought up however it's an simple example where integration slipped into being a rigid system.

See, I actually mentioned this in my last post! Don't you think there is a good reason why such policies in other countries exist? Do you really think they are trying to put people off public transport in other countries? They could easily afford to duplicate bus and rail services in the British way. They've got more money than Britain so they could easily do it if they wanted to or if they thought it was a good idea. Britain has little money yet squanders what little it has by maintaining parallel routes!

 

[carlberry]

But when presented with the easiest options, people still push back. Recent posts show there is far from a universal agreement that there should no longer be single company tickets. Whenever penalty free modal interchange is proposed on the forum, people come back with historical examples like Gateshead in the early 1980s, instead of the vastly more numerous examples of such interchanges that currently exist in Europe and around the world. Neither of those things have anything to do with finances. Truncating bus routes should actually *save* money!

So when people raise objections to even the most fundamental and easiest aspects of integration, that casts doubt on whether they actually really want "European style" integration.

By the way, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of railway stations that aren't ideally situated in mainland Europe.

Again, things like single company tickets don't prevent integration. This is where the idea of 'integration' changes into the 'rigid control of everything'.
Gateshead wasn't about 'penalty free modal interchange', it was the rigid application of the 'you must use the Metro' rule because, even given penalty free modal interchange, people refused to change because it would take them longer to get down the escalators and get onto the platform than it would to finish their journey. Therefore they were punished!

Have a single ticket for all transport modes, great.

Have easy interchange between transport nodes, great.

Truncate bus routes and make people wait for their onward connection again, now I'm looking at car adverts or Uber. That isn't anti integration, that's the reality of the situation where people have a choice and live in a country that's been building infrastructure that's car focused, and mostly anti public transport, for the last 70 years

 

[johncrossley]

Again, things like single company tickets don't prevent integration. This is where the idea of 'integration' changes into the 'rigid control of everything'.

Again, to an outside UK view this view seems crazy. @Austriantrain Are you familiar with the concept of "single company tickets"? This would be like having a ticket for *some* trams serving Vienna city centre, but not all. You would have to pay extra for a ticket that includes all the trams.

Truncate bus routes and make people wait for their onward connection again, now I'm looking at car adverts or Uber. That isn't anti integration, that's the reality of the situation where people have a choice and live in a country that's been building infrastructure that's car focused, and mostly anti public transport, for the last 70 years

@Austriantrain @biko @duesselmartin Can you give examples in your countries of bus services from outside the city that stop at the edge of the city with passengers wanting the city centre needing to transfer to a metro/tram? Is this a good thing, or should the bus routes continue to the city centre like in Britain?

 

[carlberry]

Again, to an outside UK view this view seems crazy. @Austriantrain Are you familiar with the concept of "single company tickets"? This would be like having a ticket for *some* trams serving Vienna city centre, but not all. You would have to pay extra for a ticket that includes all the trams.

Again, you deliberately misinterpret what is happening. It would be like paying less to only use some of the trams in Vienna city centre. So the question is should people be offered the choice to pay less for something if they want to?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I am using your views as an example. There are many people in the UK with similar views, including people who make decisions. This is why we don't have much integration in the UK. It may seem crazy to people in other countries but they don't realise that many people in the UK object to many aspects of integration as it is implemented in much of mainland Europe.

Who are these "many people" who object? Are they on this forum because I'm not seeing it.

The reasons why we don't have integration are much more detailed than you suggest. You can take it back many, many years from private construction of railways that led to peripheral locations based on cost. I mean, we had years of public control if not ownership - certainly from 1948, most buses and all trains were under public ownership and yet we still didn't have integration. Moreover, we have a number of administrations who have been pro-car (e.g. Ernest Marples for his own reasons, or the upwardly mobile Tories of the Thatcher era) than now mean we have built our way into a car dependency.

That is reality - it's not anti-integration to state the facts.

See, I actually mentioned this in my last post! Don't you think there is a good reason why such policies in other countries exist? Do you really think they are trying to put people off public transport in other countries? They could easily afford to duplicate bus and rail services in the British way. They've got more money than Britain so they could easily do it if they wanted to or if they thought it was a good idea. Britain has little money yet squanders what little it has by maintaining parallel routes!

Again, are you solely on transmit, or did you read what I wrote?

We don't maintain parallel routes. Bus and rail don't compete - they just don't. To give an example, the bus service from Bath to Bristol operates every 15 mins daytime, with every 30 mins on Evenings. There is a parallel rail line so why are people using the bus. A day return is £8.50 so it's cheaper by bus but only by a couple of quid. The reason the bus "wins" is that Temple Meads is poorly located, but also there are significant passengers from the Newbridge area of Bath as well as serving other traffic objectives on entering Bristol. That means there's both a time and changing disincentive to travel. However, would you be suggesting that with a dogmatic approach that the Bath to Bristol route would be withdrawn, funnelling people onto trains and connecting buses?

Also, we see in this country that you have products that differentiate on price depending on where you travel and when. It isn't uniform and partly that is to shape demand and partly to not penalise passengers for paying for something they don't need. In Manchester, you have System One tickets - if I want bus only, the price is less than one that is bus and tram so should someone in Wigan or Bolton have to pay for the combined ticket for functionality they neither want nor need nor can access?

And if you think that is a peculiarly British principle, well of course it isn't. We see in Europe that they too have similar differentiations - if I get a bus in Valencia in one zone, it costs slightly less than a transfer ticket between bus and Metro. We have distinctions based on zones etc but I'm actually fine if we can move to having more multi operator options and fewer company only ones. The fact is that integration is so much more than just that and, more crucially, there are more important issues that we have to face into. Rail passengers and bus passengers are often making very simple journeys and we need to make buses more competitive and more reliable and that's reflected in THEIR opinions.

However, it is telling that the following on the TfGM website:

Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone coming soon​

The Greater Manchester-wide Clean Air Zone is being introduced on 30 May 2022. Private cars, motorbikes and mopeds are NOT included, but some other polluting vehicles are.

Great to see that the public body responsible for promoting public transport highlighting the fact that they're aren't disadvantaging the private motorist but, of course, bus operators will have to upgrade or pay.

I am positive in my views on public transport as are many on these boards but integration is simply not the most pressing issue for most bus or rail passengers, and we're doing little or nothing to level the playing field on the most crucial issues.

 

[johncrossley]

Who are these "many people" who object? Are they on this forum because I'm not seeing it.

There are several people on this forum who have brought up Gateshead in the 80s, expressed worries about services being truncated and enforced interchange when integration has been discussed.

We don't maintain parallel routes. Bus and rail don't compete - they just don't. To give an example, the bus service from Bath to Bristol operates every 15 mins daytime, with every 30 mins on Evenings. There is a parallel rail line so why are people using the bus. A day return is £8.50 so it's cheaper by bus but only by a couple of quid. The reason the bus "wins" is that Temple Meads is poorly located, but also there are significant passengers from the Newbridge area of Bath as well as serving other traffic objectives on entering Bristol. That means there's both a time and changing disincentive to travel. However, would you be suggesting that with a dogmatic approach that the Bath to Bristol route would be withdrawn, funnelling people onto trains and connecting buses?

Parallel routes must exist, otherwise @carlberry wouldn't have raised such objections to those routes being truncated! There are absolutely loads of buses/coaches using motorways around Glasgow, and I'm not just including Citylink/Megabus. A lot of them compete directly with trains and others could be truncated at suburban rail stations. Other routes from outside Glasgow use local roads to reach the city centre, so not only do they already pass rail stations along the way, they also duplicate city services. Someone with suspicions about integration would no doubt have objections to such truncations, but it is likely that similar routes outside the UK may well be truncated in such a manner. People suspicious about integration want to maintain all existing direct links at all costs. Such a person doesn't really want integration.

I already asked @Austriantrain, @biko and @duesselmartin if they can think of such examples in their countries. Even in London they severed the through Croydon to Orpington bus and made people change onto the tram when it opened. Didn't a new metro line open in Amsterdam recently? Did they remove direct bus links as a result? Maybe someone knows.

Also, we see in this country that you have products that differentiate on price depending on where you travel and when. It isn't uniform and partly that is to shape demand and partly to not penalise passengers for paying for something they don't need. In Manchester, you have System One tickets - if I want bus only, the price is less than one that is bus and tram so should someone in Wigan or Bolton have to pay for the combined ticket for functionality they neither want nor need nor can access?

Odd that you highlight the bus/tram ticket when there is a much clearer anomaly in that region, the plethora of bus only single company tickets covering the same or similar geographical area. Someone on the direct road between Manchester and Middleton has a choice of at least three tickets or a System One ticket covering all companies. Again, does something similar exist in major cities in Austria or Germany? I'd be surprised.

 

[DanielB]

Didn't a new metro line open in Amsterdam recently? Did they remove direct bus links as a result? Maybe someone knows.

Yes, when the Noord-Zuidlijn was opened several bus routes where diverted to Noord station instead of central station.
However a few links to central still exist, those include routes relevant to tourists. For example the service from Amsterdam Central to Edam.

Similar truncations happened many years earlier in Rotterdam, where all regional buses end at metro stations outside the city center instead of at the central station.

Currently Utrecht is the only large exception with buses from all directions continueing to the central station. The difference there is the lack of tram and metro routes.
And integration with trains is less succesfull due to the higher fares.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

There are several people on this forum who have brought up Gateshead in the 80s, expressed worries about services being truncated and enforced interchange when integration has been discussed.

Let me explain...seeing as I am from the North East and actually remember it well.

If you have a slavish compulsion to make people change, you end up with some rather stupid things happening. So in terms of the Gateshead Metro, you had the situation that buses would be serving the suburbs of Gateshead. Places like Saltwell Park, so you would someone who had a direct bus service so they would travel 5/10 mins into Gateshead before that vehicle would then travel 4 (FOur) mins further into Newcastle. Instead, from c.1981, many of those services were truncated at Gateshead so instead, you would have people travelling their 5/10 mins from Saltwell Park, then get off, go down some escalators, wait for a Metro, then get the Metro, ascend the escalators and out so a 10/15 min journey became a 20/25 min journey....each way. This is clearly dogmatic nonsense.

Conversely, when they cut the services from North Tyneside and put them into Four Lane Ends, that actually made sense and that's why when they were axed, they didn't come back at deregulation whereas those at Gateshead did.

It's not a binary, slavish adherence to one or the other. You do what is right for the passengers. Doesn't that make sense?

ps I note that you still haven't acknowledged the rail passenger survey that illustrates that connectivity between trains is not rated so highly, and that integration with other modes is less of a consideration, and that I have been correct in stating that for passengers, there are more pressing priorities. That's not to say we ignore it, but there are greater priorities.

Parallel routes must exist, otherwise @carlberry wouldn't have raised such objections to those routes being truncated! There are absolutely loads of buses/coaches using motorways around Glasgow, and I'm not just including Citylink/Megabus. A lot of them compete directly with trains and others could be truncated at suburban rail stations. Other routes from outside Glasgow use local roads to reach the city centre, so not only do they already pass rail stations along the way, they also duplicate city services. Someone with suspicions about integration would no doubt have objections to such truncations, but it is likely that similar routes outside the UK may well be truncated in such a manner. People suspicious about integration want to maintain all existing direct links at all costs. Such a person doesn't really want integration.

No they don't. To take your example again, if you look at a place like Cumbernauld.... The rail station is in a really peripheral location. So in much of the town, you'd be taking those people to a distant station to get on a train that takes longer to travel into Glasgow that a bus would.

And if you don't believe me that buses don't compete/can't compete with trains, I'll point you to the decimation of corridors such as Bathgate to Edinburgh where there used to be expresses. Once the rail link opened, they have all gone and the buses that still exist (which you might erroneously think are duplication) provide local links that the train cannot provide.

If you don't understand why buses and trains interact in the way that they do, or why passengers travel as they do, there's not much else I can say. It certainly isn't because someone is "anti-integration". Do you not question why Harrogate can sustain a 15 min headway bus service to Leeds yet cannot there's no bus service to York? They're similar distances and have, allegedly, parallel rail lines...

Odd that you highlight the bus/tram ticket when there is a much clearer anomaly in that region, the plethora of bus only single company tickets covering the same or similar geographical area. Someone on the direct road between Manchester and Middleton has a choice of at least three tickets or a System One ticket covering all companies. Again, does something similar exist in major cities in Austria or Germany? I'd be surprised.

Obviously, in Austria and Germany, there aren't other companies. However, as I highlighted, you have different tickets for different functionality and that is something in Manchester and indeed, many European cities.

 

[johncrossley]

No they don't. To take your example again, if you look at a place like Cumbernauld.... The rail station is in a really peripheral location. So in much of the town, you'd be taking those people to a distant station to get on a train that takes longer to travel into Glasgow that a bus would.

But that would happen under a recast, fully integrated network. It already exists in countries that are widely considered to have world class public transport. There may never have been a direct bus service in the first place. I suspect a British bus enthusiast might visit a suburb or satellite town of a city in Germany or Austria and be surprised that he has to change to get to the city centre. He might call it dogmatic. But that's my point. The fact that we are even debating the finer details of what constitutes an appropriate truncation is a hint that there is significant resistance to integration. Would such a discussion happen on a similar forum discussing transport in Germany or Austria? I suspect not.

Obviously, in Austria and Germany, there aren't other companies.

Having other companies doesn't necessarily require there to be other tickets.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But that would happen under a recast, fully integrated network. It already exists in countries that are widely considered to have world class public transport. There may never have been a direct bus service in the first place. I suspect a British bus enthusiast might visit a suburb or satellite town of a city in Germany or Austria and be surprised that he has to change to get to the city centre. He might call it dogmatic. But that's my point. The fact that we are even debating the finer details of what constitutes an appropriate truncation is a hint that there is significant resistance to integration. Would such a discussion happen on a similar forum discussing transport in Germany or Austria? I suspect not.

Well, as was mentioned above, they haven't cut everything at Noord - some routes still run to Centraal Station because it's the appropriate thing to do. They haven't slavishly followed a dogmatic approach - in some places, it really does makes sense not to cut. As I'm sure you're aware, when Copenhagen opened it's metro network, there was recasting but they too retain fast links into the centre that run past stations - routes like the 250S and 350S.

And you never know, some British people, perhaps individuals like @RT4038 and @carlberry who are interested in buses may work or have worked in the transport industry, have an appropriate degree or other professional qualifications etc and may well have experience travelling on German, Dutch, Portuguese, Danish, Spanish, Italian, French and even Slovenian bus, rail and metro services. You never know, such people may know that they have to change, and understand the legitimacy of that as it makes sense in some situations.

I mean, have you never wondered why you go into European towns and cities with extensive rail and metro networks and questioned why there are buses there? Not wondered why the 25 travels along the route of central line - it's almost like there are different markets, travel requirements etc that are being served?

Lastly, it's rather tiring dealing with your misrepresentation of peoples' views. I continue to note that rather than a personal view of mine, I demonstrated that the views on how important integration is perceived is based on empirical evidence yet you haven't modified your earlier comments.

 

[biko]

@Austriantrain @biko @duesselmartin Can you give examples in your countries of bus services from outside the city that stop at the edge of the city with passengers wanting the city centre needing to transfer to a metro/tram? Is this a good thing, or should the bus routes continue to the city centre like in Britain?

As @DanielB mentioned most buses in Amsterdam from the north were cut to the metro station Noord when the Noord-Zuid line opened. Mainly the local buses were cut, while some regional routes still continue to Central Station. Last week I heard about a scientific study into the effects of these changes. The results were that basically everyone has now a shorter travel time, but that some passengers on regional routes prefer to use the direct bus if their destination is close to the central station. Changing wasn’t a big deal for local passengers, if I remember correctly because their destinations are more spread through the city.

 

[DanielB]

Worth to mention that in this case in Amsterdam the situation is relatively easy: the routes entering the city from the north are three very distinct corridors and they've chosen to divert only part of the services from each corridor to Noord and retaining some services to Centraal on each corridor as well. This results in the ability of passengers to choose between services depending on their destination: changing at centraal makes more sense when changing to a specific tram, while travelling via Noord is faster to get to the city centre.

The reason that truncating works in the big cities (Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam) is the existance of rail links into the city centre without a break in fares: the truncated buses and the connecting trams and metros have the same fare structure with base fare and a fare per kilometre, making the direct rail link an advantage over a winding bus route. And subscriptions often are valid on both.
In Utrecht they've also tried it with truncating the 120 bus at Breukelen station, with a direct train connection into Utrecht. But there the direct bus was soon restored and still exists today due to a significant increase in fares: while also using the OV-chipkaart the trains use different fares (with short journeys being relatively expensive) and other subscriptions.

 

[Austriantrain]

In Austria, integrated ticketing (now complemented by the Klimaticket, which obviously is the most integrated ticket imaginable) is a regional affair, mostly along provincial borders except for the East of the country, which has a common tariff area.

The principle is a common tariff for all public transport including rail (even long-distance trains), for single journeys as well as season tickets. It used to be zone-based but for instance around Vienna has been switched to a route-based system (within Vienna, a single ticket allows to use all public transport including ÖBB) - still, if e.g. there is a train and a bus on the same corridor, you can use both with the same ticket. The main benefit however is that a season ticket will allow you to change seamlessly and for single journeys, it will be cheaper than buying separate tickets (which today with ticket apps is not the hassle it used to be, if the app can combine different tickets).

Regional Bus journeys into Vienna (in other Austrian cities not so much) have certainly been truncated in some places, but not because of integrated ticketing; rather with the expansion of the underground system, which made direct buses into the center obsolete since changing to the U-Bahn is much quicker.

Where there is no underground, trams and local buses still reach all the way into the city center though.

 

[The exile]

That's a complete misrepresentation. Please find a single post where I've said that the availability of integrated ticketing isn't a good idea.
People's complaints about transport usually major on things like reliability and cost rather than integration which is usually only trotted out by local politicians so I'd go with not a major priority.

Though that may be down to the fact that people who would benefit from integration currently don’t use public transport so are less likely to complain about it except in a general way. “Reliability” and “expense” are 2 issues that both can be improved by integration (though there’s no guarantee that they will). If I have to buy 2 separate tickets / seasons for my bus + train journey it’ll probably be more expensive than a combined one, while I’m less likely to notice the reliability of my train service if it has a sensible connection time to the bus, than if I have to rely on the train being exactly on time, then for no one in front of me to fumble with their ticket at the barrier, then for the bus not to leave 30 seconds early.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2021 ==

To give an example, the bus service from Bath to Bristol operates every 15 mins daytime, with every 30 mins on Evenings. There is a parallel rail line so why are people using the bus. A day return is £8.50 so it's cheaper by bus but only by a couple of quid. The reason the bus "wins" is that Temple Meads is poorly located, but also there are significant passengers from the Newbridge area of Bath as well as serving other traffic objectives on entering Bristol. That means there's both a time and changing disincentive to travel. However, would you be suggesting that with a dogmatic approach that the Bath to Bristol route would be withdrawn, funnelling people onto trains and connecting buses?

It would be interesting to see how the listings would change if three things essential to integration were implemented:

identical zonal fare on both modes of transport - with interchange, thus permitting onward travel from Temple Meads

interchangeable ticket ( ie out by train, return by bus and vice Versa)

alteration of road layout round Temple Meads so the buses actually serve the station, rather than forcing you to walk nearly halfway into the centre before you find a bus stop ( yes, I know that’s an option exaggeration)

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Though that may be down to the fact that people who would benefit from integration currently don’t use public transport so are less likely to complain about it except in a general way. “Reliability” and “expense” are 2 issues that both can be improved by integration (though there’s no guarantee that they will). If I have to buy 2 separate tickets / seasons for my bus + train journey it’ll probably be more expensive than a combined one, while I’m less likely to notice the reliability of my train service if it has a sensible connection time to the bus, than if I have to rely on the train being exactly on time, then for no one in front of me to fumble with their ticket at the barrier, then for the bus not to leave 30 seconds early.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2021 ==


It would be interesting to see how the listings would change if three things essential to integration were implemented:

identical zonal fare on both modes of transport - with interchange, thus permitting onward travel from Temple Meads

interchangeable ticket ( ie out by train, return by bus and vice Versa)

alteration of road layout round Temple Meads so the buses actually serve the station, rather than forcing you to walk nearly halfway into the centre before you find a bus stop ( yes, I know that’s an option exaggeration)

I think the reliability issue for people is that their bus actually turns up, when it does it is on time, and then doesn't get stuck in traffic. That is much more to do with better bus priority and enforcement not integrated ticketing.

As for Bath to Bristol, even without the cost penalty, the buggeration factor is still quite an issue and not helped, as you mention, by the partial removal of buses from the station approach. Not withstanding that, you have the issue that there are significant flows that aren't centre to centre. Perhaps more pressing priorities could be:

• Bus priority from Bath city centre to Newbridge, or along the Keynsham bypass (that would be radical)
• Improved bus priority through Brislington with the current bus lanes (inbound M-F 0700-1000) being increased to seven days a week, 0700-1900 (aka 7/7/7), remodelling the West Town Lane junction and improved bus priority past Arnos Vale and the Printworks through the removal of on street parking
• Bus only routes into the city centre

Measures that not only benefit the X39 but every other bus! I digress... back on topic, the local area of CUBA (Counties that Used to Be Avon) does have integrated bus and rail tickets. However, they are so woefully marketed by everyone that it's little wonder that they aren't as popular as they could be.

As shown in the posts from Dutch correspondents, there is a pragmatic way in which they've kept some through routes and truncated others but notably, the Noord scheme makes journeys faster. For most people, it's more the buggeration factor of changing that is the issue. That can be mitigated in part by integrated ticketing and good physical design of interchanges but if you begin to impose a time penalty, that is the issue.

 

[JonasB]

As I said, you don't consider integration as a major priority. Which would be considered strange to most non-UK Europeans reading this.

As a non-UK European, yes that is strange.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2021 ==

By the way, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of railway stations that aren't ideally situated in mainland Europe.

There is. Howabout Tobo? https://goo.gl/maps/7gz69RcxTwkPJixd6

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2021 ==

@Austriantrain @biko @duesselmartin Can you give examples in your countries of bus services from outside the city that stop at the edge of the city with passengers wanting the city centre needing to transfer to a metro/tram? Is this a good thing, or should the bus routes continue to the city centre like in Britain?

In Stockholm there are number of minor bus hubs around the city and it is quite common that buses from further out terminate at one of those hubs and passengers are expected to transfer to the metro or another bus route. Having all the bus routes continue to the central station would make longer trips easier (but probably not faster), but on the other hand the streets around the central station would be so full of buses that it would not be practical.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

As a non-UK European, yes that is strange.

There are many things that mark us out as an island nation.

It's not that integration isn't desirable. Just that our public transport has more fundamental issues than just that.

In Stockholm there are number of minor bus hubs around the city and it is quite common that buses from further out terminate at one of those hubs and passengers are expected to transfer to the metro or another bus route. Having all the bus routes continue to the central station would make longer trips easier (but probably not faster), but on the other hand the streets around the central station would be so full of buses that it would not be practical.

And there's some sense in that and, as in Copenhagen, some have been truncated and some still travel through. That was also how much of how the Tyne and Wear Metro worked/still works. Buses into interchange points such as Four Lane Ends or Heworth but the Gateshead example was truncating bus services FOUR minutes from the single largest traffic objective and funnelling people onto the Metro. Not a brilliant example!

 

[Spaceflower]

• It isn't that integration isn't laudable or would be welcomed by passengers. It is, and this is backed up by empirical research etc, is that for many passengers, it is not the priority. Their priority is reliability - will the bus or train that I am expecting to catch actually arrive, and will it be on time so that get to work or be at whatever sporting or entertainment event for the start. This is followed by a reasonable travelling environment, information and safety, and this is backed up by the latest rail passenger survey https://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.n.../TF-Rail-passenger-priorities-July20_link.pdf - intra-mode integration doesn't even get into the top 10 issues and integration with other modes is lower than that.

How much of that is down to passenger inertia though. Possibly passengers don't value integration because they've never had a chance to?

 

[RT4038]

Lots of people in the UK don't even want integration. Just look at the Buses & Coaches section. You will see @TheGrandWazoo, @RT4038 and @carlberry show a preference for the current system. They don't even want integrated ticketing for local transport within a city, never mind between buses and trains. At best, they will say that integration is not a major priority. Only do it if it is easy.

This is simply a misrepresentation. I think you are drawing conclusions from my posts that are not quite correct.

• I have no issue with integrated ticketing. I do know that it is not realistically going to be possible without all the constituent parts of the integration being funded, with single management, from the same pot. This will entail moving all, or a substantial proportion of, revenue risk from operators to the funding authority, at least during the transition period. I do not think that the funding is available, or likely to be available, to fund this revenue risk at present.
• I do not conflate a choice of single operator ticketing as an anathema to the ticketing system. Again, removal of these will practically only happen when revenue risk moves from operators to the funding authority, and there are funding and revenue protection costs and implications which need to be addressed to facilitate this. Yes, not having them would make the ticketing offer simpler, but withdrawal of a choice of single operator ticket is not particularly high on the priority list (as it achieves little or nothing) for improving public transport, compared to the many other more pressing issues.
• I am not against integrated services - I am against introducing them dogmatically (the Gateshead example which is always mentioned, but there are also plenty of other examples of taking passengers out of their way to achieve interchange etc.). I also think that either rail or road punctuality is not anywhere near good enough in this country to rely on connecting services apart from the most frequent city operations. This needs addressing (at considerable expense) before integration becomes a practical option that will not be discredited at the first hurdle. Funding is also a severe issue here - in the town that I live the railway station is 15-20 minutes walk from the town centre. The presence of the railway line, low and narrow bridges (and the Victorian housing streets around the station) severely constricts the road system. Only two of the town bus services, and none of the country/inter-urban services serve the railway station. Splitting the cross-town services and extending them and the country buses to serve the station would cost several additional vehicles and crews into the services, and even more if connecting with train times were also involved. There are no savings to be made in the area by withdrawing services parallel to rail service due to them both serving intermediate places not served by rail. There is no real prospect of funding becoming available for these additional resources.

For all the faults of our system, the modal share Bus/rail/car is not materially different between Germany and the UK. If you do much travelling on local trains and buses in Germany you will find plenty of lightly loaded trips being run, in spite of all the integration and consequent funding.

Tinkering with this bit, or that bit, without an overarching plan and the funding to go with, is not going to bring the integrated results desired.

 

[Austriantrain]

For all the faults of our system, the modal share Bus/rail/car is not materially different between Germany and the UK.

Are there any regional data on this? How does Modal Split compare between London and the South and the rest of the UK?

Since Germany doesn’t have anything remotely comparable to London and it’s surroundings, it would probably make more sense to compare its Modal Split to England without the London region (and cut out Scotland as well, since there is nothing comparable to it in Germany either).

I do think that these sorts of General country-by-country comparisons are somewhat problematic (how to compare the Netherlands to Germany, eg).

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

How much of that is down to passenger inertia though. Possibly passengers don't value integration because they've never had a chance to?

Well, the ability to interchange within the rail network isn’t in the top 10 of passenger priorities and they do have that option.

 

[Spaceflower]

Well, the ability to interchange within the rail network isn’t in the top 10 of passenger priorities and they do have that option.

But the vast majority do it though. Can you imagine the rail network without the ability to change trains or buy through tickets? I think it might top out in peoples priorities if it was not as easy to do, maybe?

But the real question is how many more people would switch to public transport (or sustainable transport options) if they were better integrated.

Cycling by train is a form of integrated transport too.

Big subject and I have a tired eyes and a bottle of wine....

 

[geoffk]

p.s. I see that no-one contradicts my complaints about the deficiencies of our transport policies, or tells me I am just a born whinger. Just "Self-flagellation" and "Germans complain too." They certainly would if they had to put up with what we have to use.

How are motorists going to be tempted out of their polluting and energy-wasting cars if this is all we have to offer?

And the debate about cutting emissions is centred around technological fixes like electric cars, with grants available to trade in your petrol or diesel model. There's little being said by Government to encourage behavioural change. Where are the incentives to reduce car use, to get rid of the second car and switch to public transport or active travel? Quite the reverse - we've a 3.8% rise in rail fares coming up, possibly higher for buses and no fuel duty rise for motorists for 12 years.

 

[Spaceflower]

And the debate about cutting emissions is centred around technological fixes like electric cars, with grants available to trade in your petrol or diesel model. There's little being said by Government to encourage behavioural change. Where are the incentives to reduce car use, to get rid of the second car and switch to public transport or active travel? Quite the reverse - we've a 3.8% rise in rail fares coming up, possibly higher for buses and no fuel duty rise for motorists for 12 years.

As a country, we need roads. Roads need paying for.

 

[johncrossley]

I do not conflate a choice of single operator ticketing as an anathema to the ticketing system.

But how can this be compatible with European style integration? The core principle is that you have a network where connections between routes are as friction-less as possible, so that people are still willing to make journeys even though there isn't a direct service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2021 ==

Are there any regional data on this? How does Modal Split compare between London and the South and the rest of the UK?

Since Germany doesn’t have anything remotely comparable to London and it’s surroundings, it would probably make more sense to compare its Modal Split to England without the London region (and cut out Scotland as well, since there is nothing comparable to it in Germany either).

I do think that these sorts of General country-by-country comparisons are somewhat problematic (how to compare the Netherlands to Germany, eg).

I think the best you can do is compare between cities/urban areas as you regularly see commentators, journalists etc. doing such comparisons. I'm sure I've seen blogs about sustainable transport cite Vienna and Zurich as places with particularly high modal share for public transport, even though they aren't big cities on the scale of London. Vienna might be comparable with Manchester and Birmingham.