Preston Bus Station

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Maybe we should host this debate on this website once every Preston Guild and then be able to see how the passage of time changes the views on the now-listed Preston bus station.

 

[radamfi]

I don twant Swiss quality transport thanks. I think we do rather well with what we have got no matter how much a bunch of enthusiasts moan and groan on transport forums.

Perhaps you don't realise how low patronage is on buses outside London, and especially compared to Switzerland? This is not about what enthusiasts want (actually enthusiasts are generally quite happy with the status quo), but trying to cut down the number of car trips.

 

[Lankyline]

Maybe we should host this debate on this website once every Preston Guild and then be able to see how the passage of time changes the views on the now-listed Preston bus station.

Maybe then Paul, Concrete "cancer" has set in and they will have had to demolish it, one can live in hope !

 

[Whistler40145]

I think some of the pillars holding Preston Bus Station up could have "Concrete Cancer", looking at them, you can see large cracks appearing & can also see the metal rods.

I do wonder how they are able to take the strain.

 

[Clip]

Perhaps you don't realise how low patronage is on buses outside London, and especially compared to Switzerland? This is not about what enthusiasts want (actually enthusiasts are generally quite happy with the status quo), but trying to cut down the number of car trips.

Funny that as when I am in Newcastle or indeed Leicester visiting friends/football the buses always seem rammed with people going in and out of town.

Margate less so apart from the mornings and the ones going up to Westwood.

So you are not going to answer then?


Or maybe you are going to selectivley answer my post to save face?

 

[radamfi]

So you are not going to answer then?


Or maybe you are going to selectivley answer my post to save face?

Clearly some places would encounter large scale disruption if buses were rerouted to the station. That goes without saying.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Funny that as when I am in Newcastle or indeed Leicester visiting friends/football the buses always seem rammed with people going in and out of town.

Margate less so apart from the mornings and the ones going up to Westwood.

So you are not going to answer then??

Sadly your anecdotal evidence does not fit the national picture.

London accounts for 20% of the population of England. Yet 50% of all bus journeys. In London bus use rising. Almost everywhere it's a falling. Read the latest government report: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/11854/annual-bus-statistics-2011-12.pdf

London and Belfast are the only cities in the UK, where bus operations fares and timetabling are still set and financed by the local authority. Everywhere, buses and run on a commercial basis with the enivtable consequences. Manchester has numerous bus companies and 13 different single bus fares. London has one flat bus fare and one easy to use smart card.

And look what's happened.

 

[Robertj21a]

Sadly your anecdotal evidence does not fit the national picture.

London accounts for 20% of the population of England. Yet 50% of all bus journeys. In London bus use rising. Almost everywhere it's a falling. Read the latest government report: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/11854/annual-bus-statistics-2011-12.pdf

London and Belfast are the only cities in the UK, where bus operations fares and timetabling are still set and financed by the local authority. Everywhere, buses and run on a commercial basis with the enivtable consequences. Manchester has numerous bus companies and 13 different single bus fares. London has one flat bus fare and one easy to use smart card.

And look what's happened.

London also has a massively subsidised operation, costing residents a large amount of money.

Robert
.

 

[Clip]

Sadly your anecdotal evidence does not fit the national picture.

London accounts for 20% of the population of England. Yet 50% of all bus journeys. In London bus use rising. Almost everywhere it's a falling. Read the latest government report: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/11854/annual-bus-statistics-2011-12.pdf

London and Belfast are the only cities in the UK, where bus operations fares and timetabling are still set and financed by the local authority. Everywhere, buses and run on a commercial basis with the enivtable consequences. Manchester has numerous bus companies and 13 different single bus fares. London has one flat bus fare and one easy to use smart card.

And look what's happened.

It may not fit the national picture - I never said it did. I am merely questioning why we have to have every bus route into towns or cities to pass by the train station that is there. I plucked 3 places I know and visit all of which have very difficult access to the railway station for every bus to use yet apparently they all should, even if it means going well out of the way to where most people want to go - the town/city centre - when they are on the bus.

 

[radamfi]

London also has a massively subsidised operation, costing residents a large amount of money.

TfL is mostly funded by national taxation so it is really the residents of the UK paying for it.

TfL's bus operation is rather cheap by international standards, and also cheap compared to rail systems. A lot of the costs of London buses are also down to the need to run a lot of extra buses because of the severe congestion. You don't really get fully commercial bus systems that are of world class standard.

 

[shinkansen1966]

London also has a massively subsidised operation, costing residents a large amount of money..

Good.

With 6 million bus journeys made in London, representing a near 50% increase in 10 years, it's money well spent.

 

[Robertj21a]

Good.

With 6 million bus journeys made in London, representing a near 50% increase in 10 years, it's money well spent.

If other busy areas were subsidised to the same extent you'd see similarly large increases in use there too. Most TfL bus fares are really too cheap (though Londoners wouldn't agree).

Robert

 

[radamfi]

If other busy areas were subsidised to the same extent you'd see similarly large increases in use there too. Most TfL bus fares are really too cheap (though Londoners wouldn't agree).

Obviously it would be good for the rest of the country enjoyed a well funded bus network but that is impossible under deregulation. It is typically British to do things on the cheap and not want to pay a proper price for a proper service. In some ways even London buses are run on the cheap, for example by using cheap British made buses and having inadequate bus priority.

London buses have a cheap single fare, but that only applies if you don't need to change onto other buses or trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think some of the pillars holding Preston Bus Station up could have "Concrete Cancer", looking at them, you can see large cracks appearing & can also see the metal rods.

This is something that cannot be laughed at as being insignificant in its implications, as once that amount of degradation has ensued without remedial measures being administered, matters will deteriorate at an advancing pace.

 

[Deerfold]

Good.

With 6 million bus journeys made in London, representing a near 50% increase in 10 years, it's money well spent.

Just for clarification that's 6 million journeys a day.

In that same time there's been an approximate 30% increase in the size of the combined bus fleets of the London bus operators.

 

[kevjs]

London and Belfast are the only cities in the UK, where bus operations fares and timetabling are still set and financed by the local authority. Everywhere, buses and run on a commercial basis with the enivtable consequences. Manchester has numerous bus companies and 13 different single bus fares. London has one flat bus fare and one easy to use smart card.

And look what's happened.

Not everywhere is seeing falling passenger numbers - Nottingham for instance (on both it's main operators) is seeing increasing numbers year on year since September 2001 thanks to investment in newer buses and increased frequency. You have to wonder what Nottingham is doing on a commercial basis that other cities are failing to do? Oh yeah, we also have a smart card (well two, although there will be a cross operator one when the new tram lines open), cross operator tickets (although most people use single operator ones) and two single fares (although I've not found one which results in the lowest fare!) within the city area.

 

[radamfi]

Nottingham is very fortunate in having 2 quality operators (not owned by the big 3) and councils prepared to install decent bus priority and, uniquely, a workplace parking levy. Other areas regularly quoted in having good buses are Edinburgh, Oxford and Brighton. The total population living in these areas is a tiny proportion of the UK.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

As soon as anyone mentions London, it is the equivalent of Godwin's Law.

If you have a mega city with traffic at gluepot levels, a lack of parking and then throw a shirtload of money at public transport (£644 per head vs £198 per head in the second city) then you'd think that usage would increase!

 

[radamfi]

It is not a case of London having a lot of funding, it the case of the rest of the country having too little. However, if buses outside London got proper funding, how could it be spent under deregulation? Of course, money could be spent on bus priority, however that is a basic requirement and should already exist, and would largely be a one off cost. Apart from that, I can't see how it could be spent effectively. Fares cannot be directly subsidised. An increase in BSOG could mean a reduction in fares due to lower costs, but it could also mean an increase in the instability in the network due to more competition, or simply higher operator profits if there was no extra competition.

Some more routes may become commercial again if there was more BSOG and extra funding for tendered services could revive evening, Sunday and rural services. But these are relatively unimportant services compared to the core commercial services and so would be unlikely to improve patronage that much, although it would be good for tackling social exclusion.

So I would argue that proper funding for buses outside London is largely pointless unless buses are regulated.

 

[Robertj21a]

Sensible argument. There are a lot of positive aspects to privatisation within the UK bus industry, but there are a number of downsides that don't seem to have a good solution.

To date, the 1986 Act has, all too often, generated many 'cowboy' operators who just cream off profit on existing trunk routes and they depart, or get taken over, having contributed very little for the longer term benefit of the travelling public. The competition may help keep fares lower while they remain operating but there's not many examples of it having a significant long term effect. Without some controls (not allowed by OFT etc) it's difficult to see how any form of 'subsidy' could be effective.

Robert
.

It is not a case of London having a lot of funding, it the case of the rest of the country having too little. However, if buses outside London got proper funding, how could it be spent under deregulation? Of course, money could be spent on bus priority, however that is a basic requirement and should already exist, and would largely be a one off cost. Apart from that, I can't see how it could be spent effectively. Fares cannot be directly subsidised. An increase in BSOG could mean a reduction in fares due to lower costs, but it could also mean an increase in the instability in the network due to more competition, or simply higher operator profits if there was no extra competition.

Some more routes may become commercial again if there was more BSOG and extra funding for tendered services could revive evening, Sunday and rural services. But these are relatively unimportant services compared to the core commercial services and so would be unlikely to improve patronage that much, although it would be good for tackling social exclusion.

So I would argue that proper funding for buses outside London is largely pointless unless buses are regulated.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Sensible argument. There are a lot of positive aspects to privatisation within the UK bus industry, but there are a number of downsides that don't seem to have a good solution.

To date, the 1986 Act has, all too often, generated many 'cowboy' operators who just cream off profit on existing trunk routes and they depart, or get taken over, having contributed very little for the longer term benefit of the travelling public. The competition may help keep fares lower while they remain operating but there's not many examples of it having a significant long term effect. Without some controls (not allowed by OFT etc) it's difficult to see how any form of 'subsidy' could be effective.

Robert
.

Interesting that the 1986 Act is mentioned. I'm old enough to remember the pre de-reg world.

In that world, we had:

A massively subsidised network despite a hell of a lot of cross-subsidy i.e. good routes with insufficient frequencies propping up a lot of basket cases. We also had massive inefficiency in terms of depots etc. Then you had the other subsidies like the new bus grant, so that companies were disposing and scrapping vehicles after 13 years (official NBC guideline) - the equivalent of firms scrapping X reg B10BLEs!

This, and despite a much lower average wage and standard of living, bus patronage figures still fell!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is not a case of London having a lot of funding, it the case of the rest of the country having too little. However, if buses outside London got proper funding, how could it be spent under deregulation? Of course, money could be spent on bus priority, however that is a basic requirement and should already exist, and would largely be a one off cost. Apart from that, I can't see how it could be spent effectively. Fares cannot be directly subsidised. An increase in BSOG could mean a reduction in fares due to lower costs, but it could also mean an increase in the instability in the network due to more competition, or simply higher operator profits if there was no extra competition.

Some more routes may become commercial again if there was more BSOG and extra funding for tendered services could revive evening, Sunday and rural services. But these are relatively unimportant services compared to the core commercial services and so would be unlikely to improve patronage that much, although it would be good for tackling social exclusion.

So I would argue that proper funding for buses outside London is largely pointless unless buses are regulated.

And where will the money come from? Given that BSOG has been cut by 20% and that many local authorities are cutting subsidies???

 

[radamfi]

I'm old enough to remember the pre de-reg world.

Pre-1986 NBC was poor, nobody would deny that. However they went straight from inefficient state ownership to deregulation. We have not seen privatised buses companies operating in a regulated market in this country outside London. A lot of mainland Europe has franchised their buses to a large extent, notably the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.

Also, there was some good stuff happening in some of the PTE areas in the years leading up to 1986 with integrated networks being developed.

And where will the money come from? Given that BSOG has been cut by 20% and that many local authorities are cutting subsidies???

Money can always be found given enough commitment. For example the railways have continued to enjoy many billions in investment throughout the years of austerity (and rightly so). The transport budget in general is still pretty huge even now and would barely notice a few hundred million diverted to buses. A lot could be done with buses with a relatively small amount of money.

 

[Robertj21a]

Scrapping HS2 would solve lot of problems (yes, I know it would create some too!).

Robert

.

Pre-1986 NBC was poor, nobody would deny that. However they went straight from inefficient state ownership to deregulation. We have not seen privatised buses companies operating in a regulated market in this country outside London. A lot of mainland Europe has franchised their buses to a large extent, notably the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.

Also, there was some good stuff happening in some of the PTE areas in the years leading up to 1986 with integrated networks being developed.



Money can always be found given enough commitment. For example the railways have continued to enjoy many billions in investment throughout the years of austerity (and rightly so). The transport budget in general is still pretty huge even now and would barely notice a few hundred million diverted to buses. A lot could be done with buses with a relatively small amount of money.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Pre-1986 NBC was poor, nobody would deny that. However they went straight from inefficient state ownership to deregulation. We have not seen privatised buses companies operating in a regulated market in this country outside London. A lot of mainland Europe has franchised their buses to a large extent, notably the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.

Also, there was some good stuff happening in some of the PTE areas in the years leading up to 1986 with integrated networks being developed.



Money can always be found given enough commitment. For example the railways have continued to enjoy many billions in investment throughout the years of austerity (and rightly so). The transport budget in general is still pretty huge even now and would barely notice a few hundred million diverted to buses. A lot could be done with buses with a relatively small amount of money.

Railways are emotive things and being so, are important to VOTERS. Buses aren't sadly. Hence, getting this circuitously back on topic, why 26 signal boxes were grade II listed in 2013, and yet bus stations....only Preston. Even a check for bus depots showed Stockwell, Bournemouth, Avonmouth, Northenden and Bow (and possibly Jesmond in Newcastle).

That is why there are swingeing cuts being made to bus service provision rather than cutting day care or refuse collections! Let alone the building of HS2! People care less about buses than a lot of other things.

All this clamour for integrated transport and bus/rail feeders etc. That isn't what has driven growth in London but a hell of a load of expenditure and it isn't a "few hundred million" to get things even close to London. To bring public transport investment in Wales (per capita) to the same level as London would mean an extra £1.3bn, and with Wales being less densely populated, that wouldn't even get close to service provision.

 

[radamfi]

It is typically British to assume that nothing can be done, and that is why things don't change. The fact is that high quality local transport is possible and can be seen with our own eyes not very far from the UK borders. I'm not asking for the world, only what others take for granted. However, despite my optimistic ranting, I do believe that nothing will really change so I do intend to take advantage of freedom of movement within Europe in the future.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is typically British to assume that nothing can be done, and that is why things don't change. The fact is that high quality local transport is possible and can be seen with our own eyes not very far from the UK borders. I'm not asking for the world, only what others take for granted. However, despite my optimistic ranting, I do believe that nothing will really change so I do intend to take advantage of freedom of movement within Europe in the future.

If you mean realism vs. the dreams of unlimited investment? The fact is that the Labour government (1997-2007) had the money, parliamentary majority and opportunity to really invest in UK buses. Yes, we had some RBG and Kickstart money, but where was the real investment then?

Also, all very good to focus on the good things elsewhere. How about the downsides?

 

[radamfi]

If you mean realism vs. the dreams of unlimited investment? The fact is that the Labour government (1997-2007) had the money, parliamentary majority and opportunity to really invest in UK buses. Yes, we had some RBG and Kickstart money, but where was the real investment then?

Oh yes, that administration was a huge disappointment. They basically gave up on transport after the fuel protest.

How about the downsides?

Like what? Higher taxation?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Oh yes, that administration was a huge disappointment. They basically gave up on transport after the fuel protest.



Like what? Higher taxation?

That for a start.

Also, for people who've enjoyed public transport on the continent.... atrocious city buses with terrible seats. What about enforced interchanging - travelling from Budapest city centre to the airport necessitates a 15 min wait (at least) having got off the metro and waiting at a featureless bus station to travel to the airport. For modern parallels in the UK, how about the cutting of services from parts of Gateshead to terminate at the Metro rather than serving Newcastle in the early 1980s.

Then you have the political meddling of providing services that are "socially necessary" - witness the Cardiff Airport bus introduction whilst other tendered services are withdrawn. Also, the cross-subsidy element where trunk routes had relatively poor services in order to pay/provide resources for weaker ones.

Also, great having regulation but who provides the innovation?

 

[Deerfold]

Some more routes may become commercial again if there was more BSOG and extra funding for tendered services could revive evening, Sunday and rural services. But these are relatively unimportant services compared to the core commercial services and so would be unlikely to improve patronage that much, although it would be good for tackling social exclusion.

I'd argue the Sunday and evening routes are vital.

If there's times when it's very hard to travel or large gaps between buses then that massively boosts the chances of someone buying a car or learning to drive.

Similarly, the more areas that are hard to get to by public transport the bigger the argument for getting a car (I realise some areas are never going to be easy to get to, but the more of them there are the bigger the argument).

Once they've got the car it's often a lot easier to just use it or justify the expense of having it by using it more.

Most of the areas with very high patronage have pretty good evening and Sunday services, even where these are not very well used.

One of the local routes past my house has (commercially) extended its hours so that instead of findishing at 1845 it runs hourly until 2132. Although this last bus is rarely busy along all of its route they seem to have boosted patronage during the day (they doubled the daytime frequency too and buses seem to be just as busy) as fewer people worry they may miss the last bus.

 

[radamfi]

Again, we have the British obsession with direct services. That is only an issue in Britain because the changing experience has traditionally been so bad and you have to pay for the privilege.

Comparing with Hungary is a bit silly given that it is a poor country compared to Western Europe. I'm far more interested in the Netherlands or Switzerland.

Horrible city buses like the Citaro and MAN Lion City?

If the UK is so innovative, why do so many people pay in cash on the bus even now in 2013? Where are the bus transponders changing the lights? Where is the on bus next stop information? Why can't I see out of the window in winter?