Europe looks ahead...

[Austriantrain]

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 ==



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.

Before COVID, the modal share of public transport in Vienna was 38%. Individual car was 27, bike 7, foot 28.

Comparing Vienna with British cities is difficult though, because boundaries are drawn differently. Vienna has about 1,9m inhabitants on 415 square km. The city of Manchester has about 550.000 on 115 square km. Greater Manchester has 2,8m on 1270 square km while there is no administrative equivalent such as a „Greater Vienna“.

In effect the urban core of Vienna is much larger, which obviously facilitates a higher share of public transport.

 

[johncrossley]

Before COVID, the modal share of public transport in Vienna was 38%. Individual car was 27, bike 7, foot 28.

Comparing Vienna with British cities is difficult though, because boundaries are drawn differently. Vienna has about 1,9m inhabitants on 415 square km. The city of Manchester has about 550.000 on 115 square km. Greater Manchester has 2,8m on 1270 square km while there is no administrative equivalent such as a „Greater Vienna“.

In effect the urban core of Vienna is much larger, which obviously facilitates a higher share of public transport.

Manchester's boundaries are very tightly drawn and a lot of places that are essentially considered by most people as integral parts of the city are not included. For example, the Manchester United football ground is in a neighbouring municipality even though it is only about 3-4 km from the city centre. Including a 10 km radius around the city (so giving an area of about 314 square km) centre would probably get you about 1.5 million, so that is still quite a dense population. Birmingham has more generous boundaries with about 1 million within its own municipality.

 

[AlbertBeale]

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

Firstly - if we had rational and sustainable land use, there'd be no need for more roads (fewer in fact). And if they are to be built and paid for (and existing ones maintained), then motor vehicles should start paying their way for a change.

 

[daodao]

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

Please desist from your Stalinist argumentative posts.

I agree with the sensible and well argued views of transport experts @carlberry and @TheGrandWazoo, in particular:

Transport integration: Yes, where practicable/affordable. However, it is perfectly reasonable for a business to provide cheaper ticketing options restricted to use of their own services.

The implementation of a rigid system forcing people to change when they don't want or need to: No.
This is one of the reasons why I am opposed to franchising, which is about bossing people and transport providers based on a dogmatic approach to public transport provision, and is neither affordable nor addresses the key issues, such as land use planning.

 

[johncrossley]

@johncrossley

Please desist from your Stalinist argumentative posts.

I agree with the sensible and well argued views of transport experts @carlberry and @TheGrandWazoo, in particular:

Transport integration: Yes, where practicable/affordable. However, it is perfectly reasonable for a business to provide cheaper ticketing options restricted to use of their own services.

The implementation of a rigid system forcing people to change when they don't want or need to: No.
This is one of the reasons why I am opposed to franchising, which is about bossing people and transport providers based on a dogmatic approach to public transport provision, and is neither affordable nor addresses the key issues, such as land use planning.

The debate is not whether European style integration is preferable or not. The question is whether people in Britain are against European style integration. It is clear that many people don't want to go down the integration route as far as they have done in Austria, Germany etc. They are content with the 'easy wins'. For example having integrated tickets alongside single company tickets and only calling at the rail station if relatively easy to do so.

 

[daodao]

They are content with the 'easy wins'. For example having integrated tickets alongside single company tickets and only calling at the rail station if relatively easy to do so.

That is the pragmatic/affordable "British" approach to doing things. Unless there is first-class timekeeping/reliability or high frequency, changing on public transport is fraught with problems and a disincentive to using it.

 

[The exile]

The debate is not whether European style integration is preferable or not. The question is whether people in Britain are against European style integration. It is clear that many people don't want to go down the integration route as far as they have done in Austria, Germany etc. They are content with the 'easy wins'. For example having integrated tickets alongside single company tickets and only calling at the rail station if relatively easy to do so.

I would suggest that most “people in Britain” have no idea what “European style integration” ( of transport, that is) is. That cuts both ways, of course. I am struggling to think of anyone who has experienced public transport in major European cities whose reaction has not been “ why can’t we do that here?” I agree however, that too much “ back office control” is a bad thing - having for years lived on a minor German branch line where the last Saturday train still ran “half an hour after the shops close at 4:30 pm” 10 years after opening hours had been extended by a couple of hours.

 

[RT4038]

The debate is not whether European style integration is preferable or not. The question is whether people in Britain are against European style integration. It is clear that many people don't want to go down the integration route as far as they have done in Austria, Germany etc. They are content with the 'easy wins'. For example having integrated tickets alongside single company tickets and only calling at the rail station if relatively easy to do so.

It is clear, in as much as because many people don't want to be paying extra taxes, or divert existing public expenditure, to fund such European style integration (and I think we are only talking about a proportion of European countries as exemplars?). The conclusion can probably be drawn that these people are therefore content with the 'easy wins' which do not require any appreciable funding increases, which will not come near the integration of Germany, Austria etc. A question is does such additional funding represent good value for money when Germany has a similar car/public transport modal split as ourselves?

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).

These sorts of comparisons are somewhat problematic for all sorts of reasons - geographic, demographic and economic conditions are invariably different between one country and another (particularly between the UK and mainland European countries) - and taking bits of one country and comparing to bits of another will draw criticism for only comparing the favourable or unfavourable depending on the argument. That is before any questions of the underlying data being like for like...... So I am having to take the comparison at face value.

 

[johncrossley]

It is clear, in as much as because many people don't want to be paying extra taxes, or divert existing public expenditure, to fund such European style integration

I should reiterate that not all integration increases costs. A lot of the motivation comes from saving money, because by requiring people to change you can end up with fewer or shorter routes. For example in Britain you often have multiple routes following a major corridor into a city centre, whereas the comparable route in Germany might have fewer services on the trunk with outlying areas requiring a change.

 

[RT4038]

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.

Then you buy the integrated ticket. Frictionless changes, with the reliability of our transport networks, is a fiction which is going to cause the integrated system to fall at the first hurdle.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2021 ==

I should reiterate that not all integration increases costs. A lot of the motivation comes from saving money, because by requiring people to change you can end up with fewer or shorter routes. For example in Britain you often have multiple routes following a major corridor into a city centre, whereas the comparable route in Germany might have fewer services on the trunk with outlying areas requiring a change.

In my long experience of passenger transport I have rarely come across such changes to be anything but a turn off for passengers for various factors - particularly unreliability of the connection and issues regarding seating and capacity. It may reduce costs but this will be an illusion - the revenue will go down even more, until the demand for re-instatement of the through service is acceded to in one way or another.

 

[ashkeba]

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.

People complain about the reliability and cost of getting anywhere other than places they have direct services to. Those are complaints about integration in all but name.

 

[RT4038]

People complain about the reliability and cost of getting anywhere other than places they have direct services to. Those are complaints about integration in all but name.

And as much, or even more, the sheer time taken to undertake such journeys, particularly if they are currently being undertaken by car. Integration, at considerable cost, will only touch the tip of the iceberg in addressing this and be unlikely to make public transport an attractive alternative.

 

[johncrossley]

Then you buy the integrated ticket.

But it isn't as simple as that. People will naturally be biased towards the cheaper option. We read earlier on that the greater expense of the rail/bus connection in Utrecht meant integration was less successful than the metro/bus connections in Rotterdam which didn't have such a fare penalty.

In my long experience of passenger transport I have rarely come across such changes to be anything but a turn off for passengers for various factors - particularly unreliability of the connection and issues regarding seating and capacity. It may reduce costs but this will be an illusion - the revenue will go down even more, until the demand for re-instatement of the through service is acceded to in one way or another.

But there are loads of situations (outside the UK) where connections are used instead of through services, as described throughout this thread.

 

[RT4038]

But it isn't as simple as that. People will naturally be biased towards the cheaper option. We read earlier on that the greater expense of the rail/bus connection in Utrecht meant integration was less successful than the metro/bus connections in Rotterdam which didn't have such a fare penalty.



But there are loads of situations (outside the UK) where connections are used instead of through services, as described throughout this thread.

That may well be true, as there are plenty of examples in the UK where cheaper but slower journeys are made by passengers in preference to quicker but more expensive ones. But I am unsure as to why this choice for passengers really needs to be destroyed, particularly in the context where revenue risk is being taken by the operator. Revenue risk transferred to a body other than operator(s) is likely to result in funding requirements that will not supported by a great many of the populace.

Perhaps these loads of locations (outside the UK) have more reliable operations, and therefore connections, than in the UK? Reliability, and connections themselves, costs money and political capital, which some countries have been working on for the last sixty years, unlike here. For a variety of reasons, connections involving bus services have not worked very well here in the UK for the last sixty years. Rail services are not much different. I don't see either getting much better soon.

I would also remind you that a very large swathe of the country is not big cities with frequent multiple routes on corridors and frequent rail services to connect with. Integration in these areas is going to be very costly with little or no prospect of savings by eliminating duplication of services by connections. The additional business generated by the integration is highly unlikely to come anywhere near the costs of provision, at least in the short to medium term.

 

[DanielB]

I would also remind you that a very large swathe of the country is not big cities with frequent multiple routes on corridors and frequent rail services to connect with. Integration in these areas is going to be very costly with little or no prospect of savings by eliminating duplication of services by connections. The additional business generated by the integration is highly unlikely to come anywhere near the costs of provision, at least in the short to medium term.

The lack of big cities doesn't necessarily mean that integration is impossible. Looking at the Netherlands, there are plenty of areas were integration was quite succesfull in rural areas.

Some examples:
There used to be a direct bus from Gorinchem to Rotterdam. This bus was truncated in Sliedrecht and simultaniously an additional station was opened serving the intermediate village of Boven-Hardinxveld. Also frequencies of the trains between Gorinchem and Dordrecht (via Sliedrecht) were increased from twice an hour to every 15 minutes.
This actually resulted in more options to travel for passengers from the villages no longer served by the bus, without a fare penalty as this is a decentralised railway with a similar fare structure as on the buses.
With succes in this case: just before COVID struck Qbuzz was actually looking into hiring additional trains from NS as serious capacity problems had developed over time.

Even more integrated is the so-called fishbone network in the Achterhoek area, where bus routes in this very rural area were restructured to form the bones feeding the spine (the railway). See this network map.
In this way a railway that was actually about to be closed by NS was rescued and now even has a train every 15 minutes on part of the network, while also building a network of strong bus services which benefit from shorter journeys to the bigger towns outside the rural area. But the key point here is similar: no fare penalty as train fares are built up similar to the bus fares. Prior to the OV-chipkaart one could use the "strippenkaart" which was the common ticket on buses also on trains.

 

[RT4038]

The lack of big cities doesn't necessarily mean that integration is impossible. Looking at the Netherlands, there are plenty of areas were integration was quite succesfull in rural areas.

Some examples:
There used to be a direct bus from Gorinchem to Rotterdam. This bus was truncated in Sliedrecht and simultaniously an additional station was opened serving the intermediate village of Boven-Hardinxveld. Also frequencies of the trains between Gorinchem and Dordrecht (via Sliedrecht) were increased from twice an hour to every 15 minutes.
This actually resulted in more options to travel for passengers from the villages no longer served by the bus, without a fare penalty as this is a decentralised railway with a similar fare structure as on the buses.
With succes in this case: just before COVID struck Qbuzz was actually looking into hiring additional trains from NS as serious capacity problems had developed over time.

Even more integrated is the so-called fishbone network in the Achterhoek area, where bus routes in this very rural area were restructured to form the bones feeding the spine (the railway). See this network map.
In this way a railway that was actually about to be closed by NS was rescued and now even has a train every 15 minutes on part of the network, while also building a network of strong bus services which benefit from shorter journeys to the bigger towns outside the rural area. But the key point here is similar: no fare penalty as train fares are built up similar to the bus fares. Prior to the OV-chipkaart one could use the "strippenkaart" which was the common ticket on buses also on trains.

I have never said that integration is not possible. However, in the UK at least, it will come at a considerable cost, at least in the short to medium term. 'Success' can be measured in several ways, and in the UK (which Napoleon famously described as a nation of shopkeepers) financial is going to be very high up the list of priorities.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Surely if the cost argument is being made, and this is such a good idea, then why wouldn't be bus companies that are commercial organisations doing this instead of various direct services apparently duplicating themselves down major corridors? Because bus to bus is a turn-off as it, by definition, incurs a time penalty and increases the potential for unreliability.

Where integration really does work is where you have speed benefit. As I have explained before, one of the successes of the Tyne and Wear Metro was Heworth Interchange where the vast majority of buses were truncated though some longer distance services continue as do some that provided local links not provided by the Metro. This situation persists because the time benefit offsets the "buggeration factor" of having to change. We already see this in Manchester where despite the perceived price penalty from inter-modal, the number of through routes from Eccles into Manchester city centre dropped off a cliff when Metrolink opened.

However, I still go back to your (@johncrossley ) initial assertion that people are somehow anti-integration. We're not but when you look at the challenges that we have in terms of financial assistance (before Covid) and the increasingly uneven playing field that public transport has to contend with in the UK, when looking at both road use and taxation, then it's no wonder that integration isn't at the forefront of people's thinking.

I mean, where else would a local authority (West of England Combined Authority) spend millions on a rapid transit bus system, create bus lanes and then put car parking spaces there except for the morning/evening peak.... and you wonder why we don't quite see that the political will is there...

 

[johncrossley]

However, I still go back to your (@johncrossley ) initial assertion that people are somehow anti-integration. We're not

To clarify, I believe that many people in Britain don't particularly want German/Austrian/Swiss style integration even without the challenges regarding funding, politics etc. Even with Swiss levels of funding they would probably prefer the continuation of separate fare structures and keeping existing direct services in the sort of situations where connections would required in Germany/Austria/Switzerland. There are some exceptions, for example @Bletchleyite, who consistently expresses his preference for German style integrated fares and services and Verkehrsverbünde.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

To clarify, I believe that many people in Britain don't particularly want German/Austrian/Swiss style integration even without the challenges regarding funding, politics etc.

You believe... Well, you believed that three regular posters were anti-integration and misrepresented their views.

Perhaps some people are a little more realistic, and indeed pessimistic, about the challenges that we have in achieving excellent public transport.

 

[johncrossley]

You believe... Well, you believed that three regular posters were anti-integration and misrepresented their views.

Perhaps some people are a little more realistic, and indeed pessimistic, about the challenges that we have in achieving excellent public transport.

I would suggest that the robust arguments given by many British posters in this thread against the more radical examples of integration that exist in various European countries support my belief, if not 100%, then to a very large extent. Note, I did originally say "At best, they will say that integration is not a major priority. Only do it if it is easy." That is clearly the stance taken by British correspondents in this thread.

To me, it seems odd to say "yes, I want integration", but then immediately go on to list so many problems with it. It is almost as if being branded an "anti-integrationalist" is a label that is socially unacceptable. I guess the point here is that it depends how you define integration.

Suppose challenges didn't exist. That's the whole crux of this discussion. We don't need to shut down the argument by saying "no funding, end of discussion", because we have the luxury of debating hypothetical situations on an internet forum. My original message was not really to debate the pros and cons of integration, as that has been done to death many times elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To clarify, I believe that many people in Britain don't particularly want German/Austrian/Swiss style integration even without the challenges regarding funding, politics etc. Even with Swiss levels of funding they would probably prefer the continuation of separate fare structures and keeping existing direct services in the sort of situations where connections would required in Germany/Austria/Switzerland. There are some exceptions, for example @Bletchleyite, who consistently expresses his preference for German style integrated fares and services and Verkehrsverbünde.

I genuinely wonder how many of the full-integration "naysayers" have lived for a decent period in another European country with daily experience of just how good a well-designed urban transport system, using each mode for its strengths, can actually be?

I just can't understand why, all things being equal, anyone would prefer an hour or more on a bus compared to a quick 5-10 minute standee bus ride then 20 minutes on a fast rapid transport rail service, all on one ticket? ("It's cheaper" doesn't really apply, as fare structure is a model that is chosen by operators etc, not something that absolutely has to be as it is - it's interesting that the same people are quick to point out that air often appears cheaper than rail because of differing fare structures).

The "Gateshead example" also gets brought up a lot even though most of us who are pro-integration see that specific one as silly, having provided little actual benefit and just acted to discredit the concept.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I genuinely wonder how many of the full-integration "naysayers" have lived for a decent period in another European country with daily experience of just how good a well-designed urban transport system, using each mode for its strengths, can actually be?

I just can't understand why, all things being equal, anyone would prefer an hour or more on a bus compared to a quick 5-10 minute standee bus ride then 20 minutes on a fast rapid transport rail service, all on one ticket? ("It's cheaper" doesn't really apply, as fare structure is a model that is chosen by operators etc, not something that absolutely has to be as it is - it's interesting that the same people are quick to point out that air often appears cheaper than rail because of differing fare structures).

The "Gateshead example" also gets brought up a lot even though most of us who are pro-integration see that specific one as silly, having provided little actual benefit and just acted to discredit the concept.

I genuinely wonder who these "naysayers" are? They aren't on this forum, and having accused @RT4038 @carlberry and myself, @johncrossley has failed to substantiate his claims that we are anti-integration. Pointing out the issues and challenges for the UK (and where we've got ourselves) and having the label draped around your neck is a bit like when you mention anything about the government (Brexit, Covid, etc) and get labelled as unpatriotic. Also, I personally wasn't too enamoured by the inference that I'm some sort of parochial, little England, bus spotter when, as you will recall, I am a great fan of travelling on public transport per se and have enjoyed exploring and observing in many European countries.

I would agree with you - all things being equal, most people would prefer a faster, integrated service and they probably wouldn't actually be that concerned in paying a small premium as it demonstrates value for money. The Gateshead example is brought up but, as I've said on this thread and others, there are actually examples such as Four Lane Ends and Heworth that actually do show the concept that you describe working. What we can't do is have a binary, black or white, on or off, approach but something that reflects the needs of the passenger.

Furthermore, it's the contention from @johncrossley that if you permit any segmentation of fares, whether it be operator only travel tickets or single mode tickets, that this is an argument by people against integration. I'm not tied to operator only tickets and would be happy for them to disappear. However, I'm not certain that a "one size fits all" ticket is correct if pitched at the top. For instance:

• Stagecoach Manchester day ticket - £5.00
• Onebus (any bus) day ticket - £6.00
• Onebus (any mode) day ticket - £10.00

I'm happy enough to see the Stagecoach ticket go and if that means folks pay £1 more, I think that may be something that people can take. However, are we seriously suggesting that if you're doing a round trip with two bus services (e.g. four journeys) that you'd pay £10? If we're saying that it should only be £6, well fair enough but then if you're saying that everything should be £6, then the issue of funding comes in and I've yet to hear convincingly how that circle is squared. I would also point out that there are numerous multi-modal or all operator tickets across the UK. They are so pathetically promoted, it is little wonder that there is little knowledge of them.

My view has been that there are much more fundamental issues to contend with. Hey, we can have franchising in Manchester or wherever but is that really the most pressing issue that is affecting things? I know the issues of taxation nationally (e.g. the refusal to increase fuel duty) are not easily solved but the self-same local leaders who already have the power and control to do the more important things, like

• Clean Air Zones that don't disadvantage public transport and do limit car usage
• Reducing the number of taxis etc and their ability to use bus priority/access town/city centres
• Restricting car usage and removing car parking
• Improving bus priority so it doesn't get stuck in the same traffic jams

No, we can't do any of those things. However, we want to have integrated ticketing (a very much nice to have) but can't sort the actual reliability of bus services so that people can rely on a timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Furthermore, it's the contention from @johncrossley that if you permit any segmentation of fares, whether it be operator only travel tickets or single mode tickets, that this is an argument by people against integration. I'm not tied to operator only tickets and would be happy for them to disappear. However, I'm not certain that a "one size fits all" ticket is correct if pitched at the top. For instance:

• Stagecoach Manchester day ticket - £5.00
• Onebus (any bus) day ticket - £6.00
• Onebus (any mode) day ticket - £10.00

And thus we get into the arbitrary nature of fare structures and how they could be changed to anything at all provided the overall income was the same, I guess. In essence, that means that the above point isn't quite right.

Looking at the bus-only tickets, a significant number of people (probably the vast majority) are making a simple return journey. Thus, most people buy the £5 ticket. A few people aren't, either because they are changing to another operator along the way, or because their tendered evening service (remember those? ) is a different operator. So let's say it's 9/10 people pay £5 and 1/10 pay £6.

The outcome of that is that if you abolish the £5 ticket, you can reduce the £6 ticket (which everyone now buys) to a considerably lower price. Using the above (out of a hat) numbers, and assuming that such a small increase wouldn't really affect demand, your "any bus" ticket would actually only need to increase to £5.10.

But that's probably an oversimplification. Day tickets covering entire major cities are a bit of a blunt instrument. Enthusiasts love them as they can ride round in circles all day, but there are other models possible which allow one to pay less if travelling a shorter distance - zonal tickets being a key one. So instead of you paying £10 for a ticket that you can use to take a bus to Glossop station, then a train to Manchester, then another train to Wigan, then a bus to your Nan's house, when all you're doing is going from Levenshulme to Manchester, say, then you would instead buy a "zone 1-2" single or day ticket which would allow you to make that trip by any mode or combination thereof as you wish. That's how all the Germanic systems work. You can buy a ticket for the entire (Hamburg) HVV-Gesamtbereich, for instance (covering an area not dissimilar to a 1-9+Watford Jn Travelcard, say) but I suspect almost nobody actually does on a frequent basis.

There are multiple zonal models (e.g. concentric and cell-like), and even the UK has some, e.g. Merseyside and London being two different ones (the former having a "cell like" system rather like the German and Swiss ones, the latter having a purely concentric one).

My view has been that there are much more fundamental issues to contend with. Hey, we can have franchising in Manchester or wherever but is that really the most pressing issue that is affecting things? I know the issues of taxation nationally (e.g. the refusal to increase fuel duty) are not easily solved but the self-same local leaders who already have the power and control to do the more important things, like

• Clean Air Zones that don't disadvantage public transport and do limit car usage
• Reducing the number of taxis etc and their ability to use bus priority/access town/city centres
• Restricting car usage and removing car parking
• Improving bus priority so it doesn't get stuck in the same traffic jams

No, we can't do any of those things. However, we want to have integrated ticketing (a very much nice to have) but can't sort the actual reliability of bus services so that people can rely on a timetable.

I completely agree with all of those, noting as I usually do that anyone who designs bus lanes in the UK seriously needs whacking round the head with a German or Dutch design manual for such things - plus we need legislation permitting the use of tram signals for buses, which makes junction "overtakes" not need an island and thus be possible in far tighter spaces. Having had experience of living in both Germany and the Netherlands (Switzerland doesn't really count in my experience as I've not lived anywhere there busy enough to really need bus lanes), and seeing what arrangements they have, ours are just a useless joke, often petering out before junctions for the bus to have to push in, and not designed with specific routes in mind (e.g. an overtake from the left to turn right), nor do they give the bus absolute priority - and stop locations also don't help, as putting them by the junctions makes use of any necessary wait.

Edit: And let's add the bus operators' own doing - the need to negotiate a financial transaction on boarding, which is still the case even with widespread contactless payment. So these zonal tickets should be on sale in newsagents, Tesco Express etc, so the bus driver doesn't need to sell them. More people need to have season tickets by adding good value options for off-peak use like the "CC-Karten" common in Germany. And we need tap-on, tap-off contactless with capping with urgency. That buses often have to stop for 30 seconds to a minute every 200 yards is costing operators a fortune and a major cause of bunching and increased PVR and thus costs. Vehicles and payment mechanisms need to be designed for a typical stop to be 5-10 seconds, and for loading a full sized single decker to full and standing maybe a minute at most.

But why does it matter? Because what we never look at, for some reason, is why those people who aren't using public transport don't use it. And very often, you'll get things back like "too expensive" and "too slow" when it comes to journeys that aren't a direct trip into the city centre. And the cause of that is poor connections and financially penalising people for having to change bus. That's a mindset thing. A two-operator ticket is not a premium product commanding a higher price. What it is is a financial penalty for having an awkward journey. I completely get the idea of further costing more, either zonally or on a per-mile basis, and so can most people, but the idea that arbitrarily requiring two vehicles, either by one or two operators, for your journey should cost more is just bizarre. London has taken how-many years to get that, but it finally has got it - how long for everyone else to get it?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And thus we get into the arbitrary nature of fare structures and how they could be changed to anything at all provided the overall income was the same, I guess. In essence, that means that the above point isn't quite right.

Looking at the bus-only tickets, a significant number of people (probably the vast majority) are making a simple return journey. Thus, most people buy the £5 ticket. A few people aren't, either because they are changing to another operator along the way, or because their tendered evening service (remember those? ) is a different operator. So let's say it's 9/10 people pay £5 and 1/10 pay £6.

The outcome of that is that if you abolish the £5 ticket, you can reduce the £6 ticket (which everyone now buys) to a considerably lower price. Using the above (out of a hat) numbers, and assuming that such a small increase wouldn't really affect demand, your "any bus" ticket would actually only need to increase to £5.10.

But that's probably an oversimplification. Day tickets covering entire major cities are a bit of a blunt instrument. Enthusiasts love them as they can ride round in circles all day, but there are other models possible which allow one to pay less if travelling a shorter distance - zonal tickets being a key one. So instead of you paying £10 for a ticket that you can use to take a bus to Glossop station, then a train to Manchester, then another train to Wigan, then a bus to your Nan's house, when all you're doing is going from Levenshulme to Manchester, say, then you would instead buy a "zone 1-2" single or day ticket which would allow you to make that trip by any mode or combination thereof as you wish. That's how all the Germanic systems work. You can buy a ticket for the entire (Hamburg) HVV-Gesamtbereich, for instance (covering an area not dissimilar to a 1-9+Watford Jn Travelcard, say) but I suspect almost nobody actually does on a frequent basis.

There are multiple zonal models (e.g. concentric and cell-like), and even the UK has some, e.g. Merseyside and London being two different ones (the former having a "cell like" system rather like the German and Swiss ones, the latter having a purely concentric one).



I completely agree with all of those, noting as I usually do that anyone who designs bus lanes in the UK seriously needs whacking round the head with a German or Dutch design manual for such things - plus we need legislation permitting the use of tram signals for buses, which makes junction "overtakes" not need an island and thus be possible in far tighter spaces. Having had experience of living in both Germany and the Netherlands (Switzerland doesn't really count in my experience as I've not lived anywhere there busy enough to really need bus lanes), and seeing what arrangements they have, ours are just a useless joke, often petering out before junctions for the bus to have to push in, and not designed with specific routes in mind (e.g. an overtake from the left to turn right), nor do they give the bus absolute priority - and stop locations also don't help, as putting them by the junctions makes use of any necessary wait.

Edit: And let's add the bus operators' own doing - the need to negotiate a financial transaction on boarding, which is still the case even with widespread contactless payment. So these zonal tickets should be on sale in newsagents, Tesco Express etc, so the bus driver doesn't need to sell them. More people need to have season tickets by adding good value options for off-peak use like the "CC-Karten" common in Germany. And we need tap-on, tap-off contactless with capping with urgency. That buses often have to stop for 30 seconds to a minute every 200 yards is costing operators a fortune and a major cause of bunching and increased PVR and thus costs. Vehicles and payment mechanisms need to be designed for a typical stop to be 5-10 seconds, and for loading a full sized single decker to full and standing maybe a minute at most.

But why does it matter? Because what we never look at, for some reason, is why those people who aren't using public transport don't use it. And very often, you'll get things back like "too expensive" and "too slow" when it comes to journeys that aren't a direct trip into the city centre. And the cause of that is poor connections and financially penalising people for having to change bus. That's a mindset thing. A two-operator ticket is not a premium product commanding a higher price. What it is is a financial penalty for having an awkward journey. I completely get the idea of further costing more, either zonally or on a per-mile basis, and so can most people, but the idea that arbitrarily requiring two vehicles, either by one or two operators, for your journey should cost more is just bizarre. London has taken how-many years to get that, but it finally has got it - how long for everyone else to get it?

Without going into every nook and cranny.... I picked the day ticket as an easy example. You're right about zoning whether it's concentric rings or specific areas of whatever. I was just illustrating that currently, ticket structures create an income and as the ability to rationalise the cost is limited (margin erosion to operators and perceived overbussing/wasteful duplication vs. increased costs of managing the franchise world), then the need for appropriate funding is required.

I take your point on dwell times. The UK has been reluctant to promote off-bus ticketing options though it has had some. I think technology is now reaching a tipping point where smartphone access is now so prevalent (courtesy of Statista) that off bus ticketing and non-cash sales can be mandated.



A study from Northern Ireland https://www.consumercouncil.org.uk/...ce_and_Conveninece_Report_-_SEPT17-_FINAL.pdf gave an insight into why people don't use public transport.

In comparison to having the instant convenience of a car, public transport will naturally fare badly and I think we'd expect that. Public transport can never seek to cover each and every journey combination. Interestingly, one issue (Security) wasn't a major concern. However, price sensitivity did not come up as a major obstacle and for those few who did cite it, the cost/saving hurdle was placed very highly (so you may think that they would never change). Instead, it's reliability, or more specifically, the perception of unreliability and services being late. That is THE major issue and, as I keep saying, it's perfectly laudable to have integrated services and ticketing but we can't get the fundamentals right.

Another cracking example from Greater Manchester is Sale Metrolink station. It is served by numerous local buses and there are two laybys outside the station....both are taxi ranks. One bus stop is located down from there and the other (towards Sale Moor) is almost out of sight. Oh, and there is no bus priority at all - anywhere. Let's get the basics right - the politicians already have the powers to make it happen!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I take your point on dwell times. The UK has been reluctant to promote off-bus ticketing options though it has had some. I think technology is now reaching a tipping point where smartphone access is now so prevalent (courtesy of Statista) that off bus ticketing and non-cash sales can be mandated.

Bus companies have always been big on cutting costs, as private businesses who deal in primarily high volume, low cost "products" similar in their demographic appeal (in many cases) to budget supermarkets. It still astonishes me that the utter obviousness of wanting to get stop dwells down doesn't occur to them, and that those dwells (while dual door helps) are primarily caused by the time taken to sell tickets.

Contactless has the advantage that you don't need to go to wholly off-bus ticketing - just tap in and out. The driver can monitor tapping in, and tapping out is effectively enforced by just charging the highest possible fare for the journey if you don't.

One thing very visible about London (admittedly flat fare) is how much the move to Oyster/contactless sped things up. Even if you change nothing at all about the fare structure this is of huge benefit to everyone - operator and user - surely a "win-win", which are rare in business!

Notably German drivers usually do do cash sales, which isn't a problem because so few people want them.Another cracking example from Greater Manchester is Sale Metrolink station. It is served by numerous local buses and there are two laybys outside the station....both are taxi ranks. One bus stop is located down from there and the other (towards Sale Moor) is almost out of sight. Oh, and there is no bus priority at all - anywhere. Let's get the basics right - the politicians already have the powers to make it happen!

Regarding Sale Moor I agree - the bus stop should be in a prime position. Another one I can think of is Betws-y-Coed, with alleged "platform 2" hidden round the side, whereas the prime location for a good quality bus interchange instead having a short-stay car park. And as noted, very rarely do I see well designed dedicated bus lanes in the UK - yet you can see them all over Germany and the Netherlands!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Bus companies have always been big on cutting costs, as private businesses who deal in primarily high volume, low cost "products" similar in their demographic appeal (in many cases) to budget supermarkets. It still astonishes me that the utter obviousness of wanting to get stop dwells down doesn't occur to them, and that those dwells (while dual door helps) are primarily caused by the time taken to sell tickets.

Remember that bus companies went down the single door route when it was still a regulated and largely publicly owned world. One you've made the decision to do that (compounded by various bits of infrastructure), it is difficult to unpick. Also, the off bus sale meant giving away a chunk of your revenue to the convenience store owner and eventually, the sums don't add up.

As I keep saying, I really do want to see public transport prosper and certainly, improving integration between and within modes is desirable but we have bigger fish to fry. This is the approach (from the A56 Manchester Road) into Bury Interchange; Bury town hall on left, and as well as on road parking, a large car park on the right.... need I say more?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Remember that bus companies went down the single door route when it was still a regulated and largely publicly owned world.

While dual-door helps in some cases, it isn't the root of the problem. Lack of dual door is a big issue in places with cross-town routes with multiple stops where you get significant amounts of boarding and alighting at the same stop, plus on routes like the Oxford Road corridor where the whole thing is incredibly busy throughout. But not every town or city has most routes like that - certainly Northern towns and cities tend to be primarily routes where you mostly just get boarding into town, then everyone gets off at the bus station, then reverse on the way back - those routes don't need dual door. Whereas for instance all Milton Keynes routes serve 5 stops (a few 6) on their way through the centre, with both boarding and alighting in numbers at each, and thus would benefit from dual-door.

The key issue is the need to negotiate a financial transaction on boarding. It takes between 10 and 20 seconds per passenger, and so that rapidly adds up to several minutes when you're loading a large double decker. There are a few ways to sort this - flat fare works (you just tap your card as you board, be that a debit card or an ENCTS, with no need for a paper ticket to be issued), as does the old-style farebox cash flat fare (particularly where the ticket is issued from a machine just past the driver, so you move forward to grab it), and as does "tap in, tap out" which is clearly to me the way to do it with contactless cards and ENCTS.

I'm sure I recall seeing a driver quote somewhere that fully loading one of the old 1990s Magic Bus Dennis Dragons, taking 40p each, took in the order of 10 minutes. If everyone just had to tap on the way past without breaking stride, you'd at least halve that, even with the very narrow door and staircase of those buses.

It only takes a trip to London to see just how effective it is. It's as quick as conductor operation.

One you've made the decision to do that (compounded by various bits of infrastructure), it is difficult to unpick. Also, the off bus sale meant giving away a chunk of your revenue to the convenience store owner and eventually, the sums don't add up.

Yes, true - of course, contactless tap-in and tap-out doesn't send revenue anywhere else, other than the cost of the equipment which must, on busy routes, surely be offset by being able to reduce the PVR by getting stop dwells down (and also as such reducing problems like bunching). Some operators have done this already - why not all? It just strikes me as rampant conservatism and the inability to see a problem "because it's always been done that way".

Speeding up boarding is a win-win. Nobody loses at all. Does Ticketer already support it, I wonder? if so it is just a case of fitting and wiring power to a tap-out device on the left hand pole (facing forwards) to tap on the way off, and setting the software up.

As I keep saying, I really do want to see public transport prosper and certainly, improving integration between and within modes is desirable but we have bigger fish to fry. This is the approach (from the A56 Manchester Road) into Bury Interchange; Bury town hall on left, and as well as on road parking, a large car park on the right.... need I say more?

If there's congestion on that road, then the on-street parking needs binning and a bus lane putting in. But I'm not sure I believe in the stick to the same extent as you do; I genuinely don't believe the industry does enough on its own to attract custom, with a few notable (mostly, though not exclusively, Alex Hornby-led, or previously-led) exceptions. i think the stick has a role, but realistically there will always be cars, and electric cars damage the environmental argument, so I think making public transport genuinely good has to be the way. I have used UK bus services I consider genuinely good, but there aren't many, and that accolade certainly couldn't be thrown at the dross attempt at a service provided by Arriva MK, for instance, and that's before you even look at the useless MK Connect "cheap taxi if you can get one" service, or the even-worse dross provided by the disreputable Aylesbury-based small operations prior to that.

 

[ashkeba]

Surely if the cost argument is being made, and this is such a good idea, then why wouldn't be bus companies that are commercial organisations doing this instead of various direct services apparently duplicating themselves down major corridors? Because bus to bus is a turn-off as it, by definition, incurs a time penalty and increases the potential for unreliability.

Or because private commercial buses are not primarily cost minimizers or service providers, but profit maximizers. Each passenger who is discouraged from changing buses is a passenger less likely to use a rival.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

While dual-door helps in some cases, it isn't the root of the problem. Lack of dual door is a big issue in places with cross-town routes with multiple stops where you get significant amounts of boarding and alighting at the same stop, plus on routes like the Oxford Road corridor where the whole thing is incredibly busy throughout. But not every town or city has most routes like that - certainly Northern towns and cities tend to be primarily routes where you mostly just get boarding into town, then everyone gets off at the bus station, then reverse on the way back - those routes don't need dual door. Whereas for instance all Milton Keynes routes serve 5 stops (a few 6) on their way through the centre, with both boarding and alighting in numbers at each, and thus would benefit from dual-door.

The key issue is the need to negotiate a financial transaction on boarding. It takes between 10 and 20 seconds per passenger, and so that rapidly adds up to several minutes when you're loading a large double decker. There are a few ways to sort this - flat fare works (you just tap your card as you board, be that a debit card or an ENCTS, with no need for a paper ticket to be issued), as does the old-style farebox cash flat fare (particularly where the ticket is issued from a machine just past the driver, so you move forward to grab it), and as does "tap in, tap out" which is clearly to me the way to do it with contactless cards and ENCTS.

I'm sure I recall seeing a driver quote somewhere that fully loading one of the old 1990s Magic Bus Dennis Dragons, taking 40p each, took in the order of 10 minutes. If everyone just had to tap on the way past without breaking stride, you'd at least halve that, even with the very narrow door and staircase of those buses.

It only takes a trip to London to see just how effective it is. It's as quick as conductor operation.



Yes, true - of course, contactless tap-in and tap-out doesn't send revenue anywhere else, other than the cost of the equipment which must, on busy routes, surely be offset by being able to reduce the PVR by getting stop dwells down (and also as such reducing problems like bunching). Some operators have done this already - why not all? It just strikes me as rampant conservatism and the inability to see a problem "because it's always been done that way".

Speeding up boarding is a win-win. Nobody loses at all. Does Ticketer already support it, I wonder? if so it is just a case of fitting and wiring power to a tap-out device on the left hand pole (facing forwards) to tap on the way off, and setting the software up.



If there's congestion on that road, then the on-street parking needs binning and a bus lane putting in. But I'm not sure I believe in the stick to the same extent as you do; I genuinely don't believe the industry does enough on its own to attract custom, with a few notable (mostly, though not exclusively, Alex Hornby-led, or previously-led) exceptions. i think the stick has a role, but realistically there will always be cars, and electric cars damage the environmental argument, so I think making public transport genuinely good has to be the way. I have used UK bus services I consider genuinely good, but there aren't many, and that accolade certainly couldn't be thrown at the dross attempt at a service provided by Arriva MK, for instance, and that's before you even look at the useless MK Connect "cheap taxi if you can get one" service, or the even-worse dross provided by the disreputable Aylesbury-based small operations prior to that.

Again without going into too much detail or going too off topic, the use of smart phone technology is a bit of a game-changer in terms of dwell times. TOTO (tap on, tap off) really is the way forward and I remember seeing on my commutes into Bristol, the sheer number of people who used m-tickets. Perhaps one observation is that more operators haven't exploited Covid as a means to move to not handling cash, moving to contactless boarding and improving dwell times.

Also, I appreciate what you say about the stick. I am talking about making things a bit more level not punitive charges. How can virtually every clean air zone penalise public transport but not the private car user? I travel into Bristol where First there have been doing great things. They aren't supported by the local authorities as much as they should; I recall James Freeman complaining that at the same time they were introducing new gas buses on the metrobus m3 route, South Glos Council removed the bus lane at Hambrook so their buses were screwed.

I know you have Arriva and I think you know my views on them. Most other major bus firms are ok, some could do better, some are doing better (or were until March 2020) but bus priority needs to happen now and it could. They manage in European countries so much better than us.

Or because private commercial buses are not primarily cost minimizers or service providers, but profit maximizers. Each passenger who is discouraged from changing buses is a passenger less likely to use a rival.

As anyone who works in any business will tell you, if you want to maximise profit, keeping a cap on costs is paramount. Don't buy the discouraging changing buses as a competitive tool in that respect.

 

[ashkeba]

As anyone who works in any business will tell you, if you want to maximise profit, keeping a cap on costs is paramount. Don't buy the discouraging changing buses as a competitive tool in that respect.

I worked in businesses and I will tell you that those two priorities make people do different things and yes you have to keep costs controlled but if you are maximizing profit then it is OK to increase costs if it increases revenue more. And competition will also make the company's interests and the passenger's interests diverge.