Modal shift from cars to buses or trams and the difference in perception between these modes

[Dentonian]

Moderator note: split from Preston trams

This was on BBC NW tonight, and my brother spoke to me about it afterwards. Apparently, some Rail journo' said that for Motorists, "buses, might be a step too far". We wondered what that meant, although, as a motorist, he thought it was highly offensive.

 

[6Gman]

This was on BBC NW tonight, and my brother spoke to me about it afterwards. Apparently, some Rail journo' said that for Motorists, "buses, might be a step too far". We wondered what that meant, although, as a motorist, he thought it was highly offensive.

Hardly offensive!

Car users may be prepared to switch to using trams, but switching to a bus "might be a step too far" i.e. an unsatisfactory alternative.

 

[Dentonian]

Hardly offensive!

Car users may be prepared to switch to using trams, but switching to a bus "might be a step too far" i.e. an unsatisfactory alternative.

Generalised, prejudiced. Especially given the proposed line is very short, though I admit I don't know what seating will be like, why would buses be unsatisfactory, but rail "satisfactory"? My brother drives; he also uses the bus - yes, reluctantly, but its his only viable alternative if the car is out of service, or he fancies a pint. He has probably been on one train in 20 years, and would judge transport on accessibility, cost and other practicalities. He doesn't judge it on snobbery, conformism or what some media organisation brainwashes him into doing.

 

[507 001]

I’m a regular car driver, train user, tram driver and user.
I never use the bus and would vigorously avoid having to do so.

 

[6Gman]

Generalised, prejudiced. Especially given the proposed line is very short, though I admit I don't know what seating will be like, why would buses be unsatisfactory, but rail "satisfactory"? My brother drives; he also uses the bus - yes, reluctantly, but its his only viable alternative if the car is out of service, or he fancies a pint. He has probably been on one train in 20 years, and would judge transport on accessibility, cost and other practicalities. He doesn't judge it on snobbery, conformism or what some media organisation brainwashes him into doing.

There does seem to be some evidence that modal shift car to tram is more readily undertaken than car to bus.

 

[AlterEgo]

Generalised, prejudiced. Especially given the proposed line is very short, though I admit I don't know what seating will be like, why would buses be unsatisfactory, but rail "satisfactory"? My brother drives; he also uses the bus - yes, reluctantly, but its his only viable alternative if the car is out of service, or he fancies a pint. He has probably been on one train in 20 years, and would judge transport on accessibility, cost and other practicalities. He doesn't judge it on snobbery, conformism or what some media organisation brainwashes him into doing.

It’s not generalised or prejudiced at all.

It’s a simple fact that in most cases trams encourage greater modal shift than buses do. Heavy rail has even higher modal shift.

The stuff people will get offended at!

 

[edwin_m]

The tram has the benefit of being easier to understand for the occasional user - it is obvious where it stops and there is a simple service pattern with a diagrammatic map, as well as real time information. This is easier to understand than a multiplicity of bus routes, not always presented in a clear way, with the risk of "waiting for ages then three turn up" then getting off at the wrong stop and having to walk some distance.

There is also the perception factor typified by Thatcher's apocryphal quote about anyone over 25 having to use a bus being a failure in life. Many people perceive them as being for school trips and pensioners, and getting a car and a licence is to some degree a sign of reaching adulthood. This feeds a perception that anyone with a car has no reason to use buses, compounded by the attitude of some media and advertising. And if there are no bus priority measures then people would probably prefer to sit in the same traffic jam in the comfort and privacy of their own vehicle.

Many of the material defects of the bus could be tackled by priority and information systems, as is happening in some places. The perception is harder to shift but perhaps the current generation in their teens and 20s, many of whom who no longer see driving as essential or pleasurable, will bring a different attitude.

 

[PeterC]

The problem with relying on bus services in the long (or even medium) term is that they change so quickly and with little warning. The infrastructure investment for heavy rail or tram means that the service is far more likely to still be around next year.

 

[Dentonian]

It’s not generalised or prejudiced at all.

It’s a simple fact that in most cases trams encourage greater modal shift than buses do. Heavy rail has even higher modal shift.

The stuff people will get offended at!

I'm not offended by reasoned arguments such as this, its more the underlying prejudice of influential lobbies such as the BBC (paid for by the licence payer) and others. See also Thatcher's comments...which in keeping with the attitude of the free marketeers in the bus industry, was just copied from someone else with 30 changed to 26. For those who weren't around at the time, the original comment was made by the Duchess of Westminster in about 1961, but Thatcher paraphrased it during the lead up to Bus Deregulation.

I recently saw a "public survey" - another shamocracy con; have you ever been canvassed for your political opinions? No, neither have I, nor anyone I know, or anyone my family knows. This (national) survey was actually from about 10 years ago, and straight away it was unrepresentative as it stated that 81% of people asked had a car/van in the household. The national average at that time would have been about 70%. It asked about transport modal habits and it stated that 22% of respondents didn't use buses because they found it "socially unacceptable". To me that's no different than saying you wouldn't go into a "gay" bar, because its socially unacceptable, or you wouldn't buy from a business that employs people with different coloured skin, because its socially unacceptable. But then again, I'm not a qualified psychologist.

The tram has the benefit of being easier to understand for the occasional user - it is obvious where it stops and there is a simple service pattern with a diagrammatic map, as well as real time information. This is easier to understand than a multiplicity of bus routes, not always presented in a clear way, with the risk of "waiting for ages then three turn up" then getting off at the wrong stop and having to walk some distance.

Again though, a lot is perception rather than reality. Metrolink routes swap and change regularly, and punctuality of rail can be appalling. I DO use the train at present - dependent on the weather; my day-to-day health; and whether the train is actually running. Since the clocks went back until Christmas, I have caught or attempted to catch the train to M'cr on 24 occasions; Twice the line was closed due to Signal Failure, so it was (service) bus to the rescue. The total delay on the other 22 occasions was 2hrs 14 minutes (average c.6 mins - not good for a 4 mile journey). Further, I managed to avoid two other Signal Failures due to pure luck with days off work; plus one in the evening which I knew in advance, so again I went for the bus; plus a "line incursion"on a Saturday, which RTI simply couldn't cope with; plus one other one which I didn't know about until the 4 weekly Performance Report was posted. Incidentally, those Reports didn't recognise any of the other SIX I've detailed above.

As for Metrolink, there is one thing that hasn't been mentioned amongst all these discussions, and that is that they are the least comfortable public transport vehicles I have EVER tried sitting on. Worse than Blackpool trams; worse than Tyne & Wear Metro, worse than any bus Stagecoach Manchester have run (except some Dennis Darts inherited from Bluebird and Dennis's) and even worse than First's 1999 Volvo/Alexanders. I only use Metrolink to cross the city (with a "CTLZ" rall ticket), and I stand up irrelevant of how full or empty the carriage is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again though, a lot is perception rather than reality.

I would agree - how do we get back to a true "omnibus" - for everyone - like they are in much of Europe plus London?

As for Metrolink, there is one thing that hasn't been mentioned amongst all these discussions, and that is that they are the least comfortable public transport vehicles I have EVER tried sitting on. Worse than Blackpool trams; worse than Tyne & Wear Metro, worse than any bus Stagecoach Manchester have run (except some Dennis Darts inherited from Bluebird and Dennis's) and even worse than First's 1999 Volvo/Alexanders. I only use Metrolink to cross the city (with a "CTLZ" rall ticket), and I stand up irrelevant of how full or empty the carriage is.

I agree, I'm very unimpressed with what are basically "standee trams", which are markedly inferior for passengers than the old ones. They should have gone for a 3 or 4-section tram more similar to the Sheffield layout - primarily standee/wheelchair/pram areas by the doors and for short standing journeys, and a longish section of seating with fewer doors for longer journeys. Quite a contrast to the very similar Merseyrail with an InterCity quality of seating.

Mind you, modern trams seem generally to be poor in this regard - Edinburgh particularly. It seems a feature of the "articulated snake" modern tram design - I think the older Sheffield concept (replicated in the tram-trains, except I think 100% low floor now which is better still) is markedly superior for the kind of "regional tram" type networks we have in the UK. Such a design is also common on the Swiss narrow gauge railways.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Again though, a lot is perception rather than reality.

The problem is that, when it comes to encouraging modal shift, perception is the important thing. Although I don't agree that the perception is always as far away from reality as you think it is.

Buses that run on normal roads are not attractive. High-backed seating and free WiFi is all well and good, but they sit in the same traffic jams and hit the same potholes as the cars you're trying to encourage people away from. And that's when you can guarantee that the bus will turn up with the advertised facilities, and that the operator won't do something really gormless like stick a Solo on a peak bus on a route that has 2 buses an hour (hi Arriva, I'm looking directly at you). Getting rid of these issues leads you towards BRT. But there comes a point when, really, the cost of the guided busway is such that building a tram instead wouldn't be very much more expensive. The Leigh/Atherton bus improvements are really very well done, but cost £130m.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet buses that run on normal roads can be attractive if the bus lanes are done right. Long lengths of bus lanes ending just before junctions like typical for the UK is mostly a political statement and is unnecessary. What you need is bus overtakes at traffic lights, the ability to turn right from the left lane by stopping all other traffic etc. Spend a day riding buses around a Dutch or German city and you can see just how it should be.

For anyone familiar with them, the Midsummer Place bus lanes in Milton Keynes are a classic example. They run on an uncongested section of road (that is still uncongested even with car capacity halved), they mean people turn left across the bus lane which has caused a load of totally unnecessary accidents, and at the one point where a dedicated bus lane would be useful (at the junction in front of Midsummer Place/intu) one is not provided.

What we need is a shift to bus lanes actually being intended to ease bus movement (at the expense of cars, if necessary), not to make a political statement.

With regard to a good many bus lanes in the UK, the Liverpool Mayor was right - they are highly sub-optimal.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yet buses that run on normal roads can be attractive if the bus lanes are done right.

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. You do get some of the speed advantages with sensibly designed bus lanes, definitely. But the comfort and convenience levels are harder to achieve. Level boarding is a lot more difficult on non-guided busways, and there's nothing you can do about the jerking and bouncing you get every time the bus accelerates or decelerates or goes around a corner. Trams and light rail is just smoother and more comfortable. Standing on a tram is OK, standing on a bus very much isn't.

I don't think buses are bad or without use. But for mass transit on a busy corridor, they're really not the tool for the job.

 

[edwin_m]

The Preston proposal looks somewhat similar to some of the recent openings in the States, which are described as Streetcar rather than Light Rail ("tram" means something completely different over the pond). These use a smaller and more street-friendly vehicle with somewhat lighter track construction, and tend to have little or no priority over other traffic. So, compared with a bus, the comfort and possibly the perception advantages remain (assuming they get the seating right and don't mess up the vehicle dynamics!) but they don't have the speed benefit or much of the capacity benefit of a fully-fledged light rail route. There are some cost savings, but I'm very doubtful that the cost goes down in proportion to the reduction in capacity, or more importantly to the reduction in likely demand in a small city like Preston. So I do wonder about the cost per passenger carried on a "streetcar" scheme like this one, and hence the viability if privately funded in the expectation of a commercial return. Despite allegedly being the home of capitalism, the USA tends to make public funding available for transit schemes more readily than the UK does.

 

[AlterEgo]

I recently saw a "public survey" - another shamocracy con; have you ever been canvassed for your political opinions? No, neither have I, nor anyone I know, or anyone my family knows.

I have quite a few times. They’re opt in things though, they don’t often randomly turn up on your doorstep. Therefore, if you’ve never wanted to give your opinion to a polling company, it’s likely you’ve never taken part.

This (national) survey...asked about transport modal habits and it stated that 22% of respondents didn't use buses because they found it "socially unacceptable". To me that's no different than saying you wouldn't go into a "gay" bar, because its socially unacceptable, or you wouldn't buy from a business that employs people with different coloured skin, because its socially unacceptable. But then again, I'm not a qualified psychologist.

This is nonsense. That’s not what they mean and I’m not sure why you’re comparing people’s decisions to take or not take the bus to people boycotting things due to racism or homophobia.

It’s simple. The bus has a weak image. It’s portrayed, sometimes unfairly, as down-at-heel. Ever heard of the term “bus w***er”? It’s a pop culture cliché, but still, it rings true. A lot of people won’t be seen dead on buses. The bus is seen by some as the most basic form of transport, used by people who can’t afford cars.

Trams have a better image. They’re perceived as clean, modern, efficient and organised. They run on rails, which gives the occasional user confidence in where they’re going.

Personally I am not a big fan of buses, and the transport hierarchy as far as I’m concerned is, top first:

Planes
Trains
Trams
Buses

I think this would be fairly typical of how most people view those modes of transport.

This is not a comment about how wonderful or not wonderful each method is, but the perception is important.

 

[keith1879]

The problem with relying on bus services in the long (or even medium) term is that they change so quickly and with little warning. The infrastructure investment for heavy rail or tram means that the service is far more likely to still be around next year.

Absolutely fundamental. Very few people will make a serious commitment such as choosing a house or picking a car based on a bus service. Perhaps before deregulation but not now - bus services come and go with no warning. The new tram systems created over the last 25 years are all still there and with no sign of abandonment (OK - The metrolink services get revamped but it is still the case that you can get between the same stops at the same frequency - maybe with one more or less change). People may not even be aware of their attitude but nevertheless the perception of permanence is essential.

 

[Busaholic]

Valiantly struggling back towards the topic...

The Preston proposal looks somewhat similar to some of the recent openings in the States, which are described as Streetcar rather than Light Rail ("tram" means something completely different over the pond). These use a smaller and more street-friendly vehicle with somewhat lighter track construction, and tend to have little or no priority over other traffic. So, compared with a bus, the comfort and possibly the perception advantages remain (assuming they get the seating right and don't mess up the vehicle dynamics!) but they don't have the speed benefit or much of the capacity benefit of a fully-fledged light rail route. There are some cost savings, but I'm very doubtful that the cost goes down in proportion to the reduction in capacity, or more importantly to the reduction in likely demand in a small city like Preston. So I do wonder about the cost per passenger carried on a "streetcar" scheme like this one, and hence the viability if privately funded in the expectation of a commercial return. Despite allegedly being the home of capitalism, the USA tends to make public funding available for transit schemes more readily than the UK does.

They tend to hold referenda on the subject of public funding and then create (or increase) sales taxes to pay for much of the construction; whether it's a coincidence or not, their fares tend to be 30-60% lower than in the UK, usually flat fare too except in the biggest cities/ longest lines.

 

[Dentonian]

The problem is that, when it comes to encouraging modal shift, perception is the important thing. Although I don't agree that the perception is always as far away from reality as you think it is.

Buses that run on normal roads are not attractive. High-backed seating and free WiFi is all well and good, but they sit in the same traffic jams and hit the same potholes as the cars you're trying to encourage people away from. And that's when you can guarantee that the bus will turn up with the advertised facilities, and that the operator won't do something really gormless like stick a Solo on a peak bus on a route that has 2 buses an hour (hi Arriva, I'm looking directly at you). Getting rid of these issues leads you towards BRT. But there comes a point when, really, the cost of the guided busway is such that building a tram instead wouldn't be very much more expensive. The Leigh/Atherton bus improvements are really very well done, but cost £130m.

I'm not sure where you get £130 million from. I think the total bill for the scheme (Leigh/Atherton/Middleton to MRI including the Cycle lanes) was £92 million.
Re your earlier comment, there may well be a difference for standing passengers, but there is no way on earth Metrolink seats can be described as comfortable. Interestingly, I think the Stagecoach E400MMCs on the "lowly" 34/X34 are actually more comfortable than the Vantage buses on the LGB. One other thing regarding standing passengers, much as standing on a bus is not a pleasant experience, its preferable to a Sprinter train with absolutely nothing to grab hold of.

All this still ignores perhaps the most important element of all: A substantial number of people simply cannot access rail based transport because the stops are too far apart. Outside the city centre, I think Metrolink stops average about a mile apart, so with bus stops 250-300 yards apart, you are adding 650 yards to the walk to/from the main road for every single journey; You could argue that if you have no relevant pre-existing health condition (eg. lower limb problems, anaemia etc etc) it might actually be healthier to walk this extra distance - but 500 times a year in all weather conditions - the very least it does is minimise the time savings.

 

[Dentonian]

Absolutely fundamental. Very few people will make a serious commitment such as choosing a house or picking a car based on a bus service. Perhaps before deregulation but not now - bus services come and go with no warning. The new tram systems created over the last 25 years are all still there and with no sign of abandonment (OK - The metrolink services get revamped but it is still the case that you can get between the same stops at the same frequency - maybe with one more or less change). People may not even be aware of their attitude but nevertheless the perception of permanence is essential.

Franchising or indeed other Reform options should put a stop to this, as in terms of route and general frequency (if not exact timetable) Franchised buses should be just as stable as rail.

BTW, presumably "picking a car" is a mistake; Did you mean "picking a job", possibly? If you had a reliable (in all senses) bus service, you would be far less likely to need a car than if you had a "reliable", but remote Rail/tram service.

 

[Dentonian]

I have quite a few times. They’re opt in things though, they don’t often randomly turn up on your doorstep. Therefore, if you’ve never wanted to give your opinion to a polling company, it’s likely you’ve never taken part.



This is nonsense. That’s not what they mean and I’m not sure why you’re comparing people’s decisions to take or not take the bus to people boycotting things due to racism or homophobia.

It’s simple. The bus has a weak image. It’s portrayed, sometimes unfairly, as down-at-heel. Ever heard of the term “bus w***er”? It’s a pop culture cliché, but still, it rings true. A lot of people won’t be seen dead on buses. The bus is seen by some as the most basic form of transport, used by people who can’t afford cars.

Interesting - and EXTREMELY depressing, you say its nonsense and then go onto explain why it clearly isn't nonsense. I've never heard the term bus w****r , but combined with seeing buses as a form of transport by people who can't afford cars - which alongside health issues is indeed the main reason - proves that it is blatent extreme, right-wing prejudice.

 

[AlterEgo]

Interesting - and EXTREMELY depressing, you say its nonsense and then go onto explain why it clearly isn't nonsense. I've never heard the term bus w****r , but combined with seeing buses as a form of transport by people who can't afford cars - which alongside health issues is indeed the main reason - proves that it is blatent extreme, right-wing prejudice. To me, the psychology of displaying contempt for the poor is no different to displaying contempt for someone with a different skin pigmentation, or different sexual orientation.

Thinking that buses are a down at heel form of transport is not a form of "extreme right-wing prejudice".

Some people would rather not fly Ryanair for the same reason, but it doesn't make them right wing extremists.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, though it is a typically British prejudice largely caused by the fact that, with a few shining exceptions, British bus operation in the last 30 years or so has been aimed at the lowest common denominator with almost no quality aspect whatsoever.

Shaking it off will be very, very challenging.

 

[bramling]

The tram has the benefit of being easier to understand for the occasional user - it is obvious where it stops and there is a simple service pattern with a diagrammatic map, as well as real time information. This is easier to understand than a multiplicity of bus routes, not always presented in a clear way, with the risk of "waiting for ages then three turn up" then getting off at the wrong stop and having to walk some distance.

There is also the perception factor typified by Thatcher's apocryphal quote about anyone over 25 having to use a bus being a failure in life. Many people perceive them as being for school trips and pensioners, and getting a car and a licence is to some degree a sign of reaching adulthood. This feeds a perception that anyone with a car has no reason to use buses, compounded by the attitude of some media and advertising. And if there are no bus priority measures then people would probably prefer to sit in the same traffic jam in the comfort and privacy of their own vehicle.

Many of the material defects of the bus could be tackled by priority and information systems, as is happening in some places. The perception is harder to shift but perhaps the current generation in their teens and 20s, many of whom who no longer see driving as essential or pleasurable, will bring a different attitude.

My first and only experience of using a 'local' bus was once in my teenage years when I was experimenting with ways to get home from school. I still remember it - overcrowded, stopping every hundred yards for ages whilst people fumbled with change and spent ages asking questions to the driver, hot, and stuck in traffic such that at times it felt like I could have walked it quicker. And the experience wasn't particularly cheap.

Never even thought about using a local bus since. The only times I've used a bus has been occasionally in London, or a couple of times when doing long distance walks to avoid having to walk both ways - and even here I find taxi is often a more attractive option.

Thinking local to me, I'm sure most people's view of buses is similar. Not snobbish, just based on past experience.

And, to add to that, they're a pain at my local railway station, as the forecourt was redesigned to allow buses to stop right outside the station entrance instead of 200yds away on the main road - meaning the whole frontage is now extremely cramped. So many times get nearly run over by a bus speeding round the circle without even dropping off or picking anyone up, and belching out fumes in the process to those arriving at the station on foot. Again, another negative image of the bus.

 

[Dentonian]

Thinking that buses are a down at heel form of transport is not a form of "extreme right-wing prejudice".

Some people would rather not fly Ryanair for the same reason, but it doesn't make them right wing extremists.

Ryanair is an Airline, amongst over a thousand world wide who ply their trade with commercial aircraft. They are not a mode of transport, so I don't understand the comparison.

 

[Dentonian]

My first and only experience of using a 'local' bus was once in my teenage years when I was experimenting with ways to get home from school. I still remember it - overcrowded, stopping every hundred yards for ages whilst people fumbled with change and spent ages asking questions to the driver, hot, and stuck in traffic such that at times it felt like I could have walked it quicker. And the experience wasn't particularly cheap.

Never even thought about using a local bus since. The only times I've used a bus has been occasionally in London, or a couple of times when doing long distance walks to avoid having to walk both ways - and even here I find taxi is often a more attractive option.

Thinking local to me, I'm sure most people's view of buses is similar. Not snobbish, just based on past experience.

And, to add to that, they're a pain at my local railway station, as the forecourt was redesigned to allow buses to stop right outside the station entrance instead of 200yds away on the main road - meaning the whole frontage is now extremely cramped. So many times get nearly run over by a bus speeding round the circle without even dropping off or picking anyone up, and belching out fumes in the process to those arriving at the station on foot. Again, another negative image of the bus.

"Image" being the operative word for your entire argument. I don't suppose there is any point in asking how you got to/from School on the other thousands of occasions? How many trains you have been on that have been overcrowded? Or, How old/badly maintained the buses were that "belch" out fumes? How many other types of vehicle in your local area that belch out fumes, speed round corners or otherwise bend/break traffic laws? And I'm loving the irony of buses stopping right outside the Station entrance, instead of 200 yards away.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ryanair is an Airline, amongst over a thousand world wide who ply their trade with commercial aircraft. They are not a mode of transport, so I don't understand the comparison.

Your point is simply that for people to decide that a service was in some way not up to was extreme right wing prejudice.

Ryanair is seen as down at heel by quite a lot of people, and some people won’t be seen flying them.

The bus has an image problem. Whether the image problem is the fault of “the bus” or not is neither here nor there. The fact remains it encourages less modal shift than trams, light rail, heavy rail, and so on - partly because of how many people perceive buses as the preserve of people towards the bottom of society.

 

[Dentonian]

Your point is simply that for people to decide that a service was in some way not up to was extreme right wing prejudice.

Ryanair is seen as down at heel by quite a lot of people, and some people won’t be seen flying them.

The bus has an image problem. Whether the image problem is the fault of “the bus” or not is neither here nor there. The fact remains it encourages less modal shift than trams, light rail, heavy rail, and so on - partly because of how many people perceive buses as the preserve of people towards the bottom of society.

The whole point here is NOT the mode of transport, but the HUMAN BEINGS using it. If saying *I* and millions of others are "The bottom of society" isn't extreme right wing prejudice by complete strangers, then what is?

 

[radamfi]

It is all to do with geography. Most people on this thread seem to be talking about buses from the "Britain outside London" standpoint, so clearly there's going to be a negative opinion. A bus in London is quite a different beast to that outside London, even though the vehicles used are much the same cheap low spec British makes. But if you then look at buses in a Dutch/German/Swiss etc. city, you are then talking about high spec buses typically running with good priority playing their part in an integrated public transport network. The status between the modes is now quite small and the choice of providing bus or tram is dictated by the level of demand or whether there is already a legacy tram network. In many cases, a combination of a bus and tram is needed to make a single journey.

Therefore the location where the bus is, is more relevant than whether it is a bus or a tram.

 

[bramling]

"Image" being the operative word for your entire argument. I don't suppose there is any point in asking how you got to/from School on the other thousands of occasions? How many trains you have been on that have been overcrowded? Or, How old/badly maintained the buses were that "belch" out fumes? How many other types of vehicle in your local area that belch out fumes, speed round corners or otherwise bend/break traffic laws? And I'm loving the irony of buses stopping right outside the Station entrance, instead of 200 yards away.

Yes you're right in that the bus has a bad image, but in my view simply because as a mode of transport it often offers a poor quality journey experience. People experience this first-hand and impressions stick.

In answer to your question, on the other occasions it was train (by an extremely not as-the-crow-flies route thanks to line closures) or combination of train/bike. Yes occasionally parts of the journey may have been crowded, but nothing like as cramped as the bus.

As regards the buses in my local station forecourt, this still goes on to this day. Couldn't tell you OTOMH how old they are, but certainly not ancient.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ryanair is an Airline, amongst over a thousand world wide who ply their trade with commercial aircraft. They are not a mode of transport, so I don't understand the comparison.

Eh? In what way is a flight not public transport?