Transport for Strathclyde – A New Public Transport Network

[Trnsprt4Sctlnd]

Is that a problem?

Only when they're in front of “anything” motorised.

 

[InOban]

Except that the new highway code gives much more priority to pedestrians and cyclists.

I read recently (can't remember where) a survey of a number of new developments, all of which were sold on the basis that they would be foot, cycle and public transport friendly.

In the event only one really did, which therefore sustained viable public transport. With residents meeting each other frequently, it was unsurprisingly, the happiest community. The others had little or no sense of community at all as everyone passed each other in their cars.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that a problem?

It isn't a problem, but it does make them of limited relevance to a discussion on motorised public transport.

 

[johncrossley]

It isn't a problem, but it does make them of limited relevance to a discussion on motorised public transport.

Bus inclined people have issues with greenfield out of town estates primarily because they are car orientated. This hurts buses on two levels. Firstly, congestion is created which makes buses more difficult and expensive to operate, and less desirable to use. Secondly, the residents are generally out of the bus market because they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that buses are not worth using if you live in such a location.

If someone moves to a town centre (not just for singletons or couples as there are 2 and 3 bed flats available) then they might not even have a car. Even if they have a car, they might not use it so much. So that reduces the first problem i.e. congestion. They are less likely to use buses compared to if they lived in, say, an out of town "sink estate" with a bus every 5 minutes, but they are more likely to use the bus compared to someone in a poorly located new build as they might use a bus to go to another part of town or an interurban bus to another town. Because they live in the town centre, they have a lot of bus routes are at their disposal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True. I think they would be more likely to want to use trains or regional buses, though, and aren't going to be using the local buses. If I lived in central Glasgow, I can't see that I would be wanting to go to some random sink estate on the bus unless I suppose I knew someone living there, but I probably would walk to Queen St for a day trip to Edinburgh rather than drive.

In smaller towns urban and regional buses are more blurred into one, I suppose.

 

[johncrossley]

If you think about the trips that people make (not just by bus but also by cars) then trips to the city centre are probably in the minority. Obviously if you are going to someone's house then they would live anywhere, and most likely not the city centre. A lot of workplaces are in the city centre but a lot aren't. Similarly for shopping. That's why it is important to provide routes that don't just go from estate to town, but under deregulation they are generally not viable.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

Indeed, one of the biggest failings of public transport planners around the globe was to focus on radial routes and ignore the need for orbital routes too. It's true that some trips will always have to be made in cars or other private motorised vehicles and this is especially true for thinly populated rural areas. That said, there is little excuse in more densely populated urban areas not to provide almost a grid like system of high-frequency public transport i.e. radial routes connected by orbital routes at regular intervals. It's what I've noticed is now a big focus in Copenhagen, where, after opening their first two metro lines, instead of building more radial routes, they decided to build a circular line and further out towards the suburbs also a light-rail line following one of the city's ring roads. There are plans to create further orbital bus-rapid transit lines and light-rail lines in the near future too. Paris has similar plans, which it aims to achieve through an expansion of the metro network.

Once fully operational, getting from A to B within the greater area of Copenhagen or Paris by public transport will be the most convenient option and a lot of car journeys will no longer have to be made. Of course, more segregated and integrated cycle infrastructure would also help.

This is what transport planners in Greater Glasgow (or any city for that matter) should also be looking at.

 

[tbtc]

Indeed, one of the biggest failings of public transport planners around the globe was to focus on radial routes and ignore the need for orbital routes too. It's true that some trips will always have to be made in cars or other private motorised vehicles and this is especially true for thinly populated rural areas. That said, there is little excuse in more densely populated urban areas not to provide almost a grid like system of high-frequency public transport i.e. radial routes connected by orbital routes at regular intervals

I don't think that planners "ignore" orbital routes, it's more that there needs to be enough of a market to pay for a bus

Taking Glasgow as an example (since this is a Strathclyde thread), there are orbital routes (8/ 34/ 89/ 90 etc) but these tend to involve the Queen Elizabeth/ Victoria/ Royal Infirmary or the main University area (Byers Road etc) - or the shopping centres at Parkhead/ The Fort in the case of the 46

But there are several examples of two nearby places which both have a frequent bus service into the city centre but have very little in the way of commercial services between them (e.g. Tolcross to Cambuslang - both have a reasonable population but what is there in one suburb that the other lacks - people travel from their suburb to the city centre/ hospital/ shopping centre etc but is there much demand to swap your suburb for another suburb?). The same is true further out of Glasgow as the surrounding towns have good frequencies into the city but not much in the way of commercial services from Cumbernauld to Airdrie/ Coatbridge or from Dumbarton to Paisley or Paisley to East Kilbride (similarly the Cumbernauld - Motherwell trains are probably the ones with the lightest loadings in the area, because there's not much in Cumbernauld that you can't get in Motherwell and vice versa, whereas services into the big city open up a lot of opportunities)

Orbital routes have been dwindling away in other cities over the years as demand gets spread thinner between various destinations - you could run orbital links but without a major "out of town" destination like a hospital/ shopping centre it's hard to find much of a market

 

[PaulMc7]

The key issue around the outside of the city centre is that every big shopping centre is conveniently positioned next to a motorway. Parkhead Forge is the only one that isn't right on one and even at that the M8 and M74 aren't miles away.

There's also tons of parking at them all which hurts public transport too

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Is that a problem?

Well, of course it isn't and I didn't suggest it was. Let's go back to your initial quote

The argument being that the car based planning that happened in the 80s under Thatcher means that only car based policies can work from now on. As a consequence, public transport is assumed to be in perpetual decline and therefore you might as well stick with existing bus policies as nothing can be done. Vast number of young people have moved into inner cities, especially Manchester and London, which is also highly desirable from a sustainable transport point of view.

My point was that those living in city centres are more likely to walk or cycle. Therefore, much less of an influence on the argument of private car vs. public transport...

Indeed, one of the biggest failings of public transport planners around the globe was to focus on radial routes and ignore the need for orbital routes too. It's true that some trips will always have to be made in cars or other private motorised vehicles and this is especially true for thinly populated rural areas. That said, there is little excuse in more densely populated urban areas not to provide almost a grid like system of high-frequency public transport i.e. radial routes connected by orbital routes at regular intervals. It's what I've noticed is now a big focus in Copenhagen, where, after opening their first two metro lines, instead of building more radial routes, they decided to build a circular line and further out towards the suburbs also a light-rail line following one of the city's ring roads. There are plans to create further orbital bus-rapid transit lines and light-rail lines in the near future too. Paris has similar plans, which it aims to achieve through an expansion of the metro network.

Once fully operational, getting from A to B within the greater area of Copenhagen or Paris by public transport will be the most convenient option and a lot of car journeys will no longer have to be made. Of course, more segregated and integrated cycle infrastructure would also help.

This is what transport planners in Greater Glasgow (or any city for that matter) should also be looking at.

That's true enough but that's because the single biggest traffic objective is invariably the town/city centre. Unless you some other major traffic objective, such as a hospital, the critical mass for public transport is difficult to achieve. In Glasgow, you do have large shopping centres but, as is usually the case, the road network and acres of free parking are clearly attractive to the private car user.

 

[domcoop7]

I think this is somewhat exaggerated and is used by people with a vested interest to justify existing policies. The argument being that the car based planning that happened in the 80s under Thatcher means that only car based policies can work from now on. As a consequence, public transport is assumed to be in perpetual decline and therefore you might as well stick with existing bus policies as nothing can be done. Vast number of young people have moved into inner cities, especially Manchester and London, which is also highly desirable from a sustainable transport point of view.

Things go in waves though. Yes vast numbers of young people are getting crammed into inner cities. Central Manchester now looks more like a North American city than a British one, with skyscrapers everywhere and cranes building new ones popping up each week.

What nobody seems to have thought of (unsurprisingly the young people themselves, but also the planners, who should know better) is that people don't stay 27, and single, with walking access to good nightlife and restaurants, forever. A trendy flat on the 15th floor is probably great when you've just left university. It's not going to work so well with husband, three kids and a dog. Or at age 67 and mobility problems. (Or when - as I'd bet a fair bit of money will inevitable happen - it turns out all these building being thrown up have structural problems, or damp, etc, etc).

And then what? They'll be clamouring to get suburban semi detacheds, which as there has been no planning, will end up being non-public transport connected greenfield new builds with good road access.

Exactly as happened the last time we went through this cycle in the 1960s to 1990s with new build high density council estates, most of which have since been knocked down.

 

[daodao]

Building flats in town and city centres seems like a better idea to me, which is what Britain has done a lot little of in recent years.

Fixed that for you. Nearly all new housing is detached/semi-detached on greenfield sites on the edge of towns and cities, with too low densities to support public transport. For example, there is a load of new housing on the edge of Congleton and on the former Avro Woodford aerodrome site, with (virtually) no public transport provision whatsoever. If the new housing in Glasgow is of a similar ilk, then all the public transport planning goes for nought. For public transport to be sustainable in urban areas, land use planning requires high density housing, which generally isn't being built in Great Britain or Ireland today.

 

[johncrossley]

Indeed, one of the biggest failings of public transport planners around the globe was to focus on radial routes and ignore the need for orbital routes too. It's true that some trips will always have to be made in cars or other private motorised vehicles and this is especially true for thinly populated rural areas. That said, there is little excuse in more densely populated urban areas not to provide almost a grid like system of high-frequency public transport i.e. radial routes connected by orbital routes at regular intervals. It's what I've noticed is now a big focus in Copenhagen, where, after opening their first two metro lines, instead of building more radial routes, they decided to build a circular line and further out towards the suburbs also a light-rail line following one of the city's ring roads. There are plans to create further orbital bus-rapid transit lines and light-rail lines in the near future too. Paris has similar plans, which it aims to achieve through an expansion of the metro network.

Once fully operational, getting from A to B within the greater area of Copenhagen or Paris by public transport will be the most convenient option and a lot of car journeys will no longer have to be made. Of course, more segregated and integrated cycle infrastructure would also help.

This is what transport planners in Greater Glasgow (or any city for that matter) should also be looking at.

Looking at the Copenhagen bus maps online it looks like they already have a lot of regular bus routes in the inner city that don't go to the city centre so they are already doing well on that front. Presumably the bus rapid transit routes you mention are for the outer suburbs.

Things go in waves though. Yes vast numbers of young people are getting crammed into inner cities. Central Manchester now looks more like a North American city than a British one, with skyscrapers everywhere and cranes building new ones popping up each week.

What nobody seems to have thought of (unsurprisingly the young people themselves, but also the planners, who should know better) is that people don't stay 27, and single, with walking access to good nightlife and restaurants, forever. A trendy flat on the 15th floor is probably great when you've just left university. It's not going to work so well with husband, three kids and a dog. Or at age 67 and mobility problems. (Or when - as I'd bet a fair bit of money will inevitable happen - it turns out all these building being thrown up have structural problems, or damp, etc, etc).

And then what? They'll be clamouring to get suburban semi detacheds, which as there has been no planning, will end up being non-public transport connected greenfield new builds with good road access.

Exactly as happened the last time we went through this cycle in the 1960s to 1990s with new build high density council estates, most of which have since been knocked down.

Couples aren't having many kids these days. Generally only one or two at the most, with plenty having none.

National population projections, fertility assumptions: 2020-based interim - Office for National Statistics

The data sources and methodology used to produce fertility assumptions in the 2020-based interim national population projections.

www.ons.gov.uk

says

The long-term assumption for completed family size for the UK will be 1.59 children per woman by mid-2045; this is lower than the principal assumption for the 2018-based projections (1.78 children per woman).

This means that there are a lot of existing properties that are unnecessarily large for future family sizes. The logical policy would be to knock them down and build smaller houses and flats on that land.

Fixed that for you. Nearly all new housing is detached/semi-detached on greenfield sites on the edge of towns and cities, with too low densities to support public transport. For example, there is a load of new housing on the edge of Congleton and on the former Avro Woodford aerodrome site, with (virtually) no public transport provision whatsoever. If the new housing in Glasgow is of a similar ilk, then all the public transport planning goes for nought. For public transport to be sustainable in urban areas, land use planning requires high density housing, which generally isn't being built in Great Britain or Ireland today.

You are contradicting the previous post who was concerned about building too many skyscrapers in central Manchester!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

says

The long-term assumption for completed family size for the UK will be 1.59 children per woman by mid-2045; this is lower than the principal assumption for the 2018-based projections (1.78 children per woman).

This means that there are a lot of existing properties that are unnecessarily large for future family sizes. The logical policy would be to knock them down and build smaller houses and flats on that land.

Erm.... you do realise that the statement relates to a downgrading of their assumptions? The fertility rate will still increase, population is still projected to increase.

 

[johncrossley]

Erm.... you do realise that the statement relates to a downgrading of their assumptions? The fertility rate will still increase, population is still projected to increase.

The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman. Most if not all developed countries already have a rate considerably lower than that. Populations in some developed countries are only increasing because of immigration.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman. Most if not all developed countries already have a rate considerably lower than that. Populations in some developed countries are only increasing because of immigration.

That wasn't what you said.

Even if lower than the replacement rate, it will still represent an increase on the current level.

Quite simply, you got it wrong. And it still fails to acknowledge that in many, many places, building is being made on low density, peripheral locations that are difficult to serve with current planning regs and provision for public transport

 

[GusB]

I realise that a little topic drift is inevitable when covering such a broad subject, but fertility rates? That's definitely one for General Discussion!

 

[Mrwerdna1]

I think it's important to point out that orbital routes aren't just meant for people who want to travel from one suburb to the next, but also relevant to all those who want to get to somewhere within the city (just not right in the centre), who would otherwise have to travel quite far (or even all the way) into the city centre and then come back out again.

Orbital bus routes do exist, but they can be slow, inconvenient and infrequent. Maybe I should rephrase my original sentence by saying that transport planners might not have entirely ignored, but certainly underestimated the importance of orbital routes (especially provided through higher capacity transport: such as BRT, light-rail, metro or even heavy rail) and are now slowly catching on to it. I suppose because suburbs across the UK are perhaps on average less densely populated than those in Paris, the support base for high capacity public transport would be smaller. On the other hand, leaving so many people de facto car-dependent cannot be the right answer either.

Bringing the conversation back to Strathclyde, does anyone know if the original document (can't access the link in the first post for some reason) mentioned anything about housing or urban planning? Presumably integrating transport in this way could be an opportunity to move towards more integrated forms of urban planning too. I mean, (the new) SPT would certainly be interested in newer developments being planned with public transport in mind and preferably in such a way that the support base is large enough for high-capacity or high-frequency services to make sense.

 

[johncrossley]

I think it's important to point out that orbital routes aren't just meant for people who want to travel from one suburb to the next, but also relevant to all those who want to get to somewhere within the city (just not right in the centre), who would otherwise have to travel quite far (or even all the way) into the city centre and then come back out again.

Orbital bus routes do exist, but they can be slow, inconvenient and infrequent. Maybe I should rephrase my original sentence by saying that transport planners might not have entirely ignored, but certainly underestimated the importance of orbital routes (especially provided through higher capacity transport: such as BRT, light-rail, metro or even heavy rail) and are now slowly catching on to it. I suppose because suburbs across the UK are perhaps on average less densely populated than those in Paris, the support base for high capacity public transport would be smaller. On the other hand, leaving so many people de facto car-dependent cannot be the right answer either.

Bringing the conversation back to Strathclyde, does anyone know if the original document (can't access the link in the first post for some reason) mentioned anything about housing or urban planning? Presumably integrating transport in this way could be an opportunity to move towards more integrated forms of urban planning too. I mean, (the new) SPT would certainly be interested in newer developments being planned with public transport in mind and preferably in such a way that the support base is large enough for high-capacity or high-frequency services to make sense.

Does your experience in Copenhagen indicate that people make a lot of journeys by connecting between radial and non-radial routes?

 

[Mrwerdna1]

Well, from what I've seen and read in the press, it's certainly where a lot of the current expansion work and planning is currently going into. Perhaps one good example is people traveling to and from the airport, since up until recently, it was necessary for most people to take a trip into the city centre and then come back out again. Now, there's also some intercity and regional trains that by-pass Copenhagen central station and the centre more generally and end at the airport instead, forming a kind of semi orbital line connecting the west and south-west of Copenhagen (as well as well as the western suburbs and Aarhus/Odense, the second and third-largest cities in Denmark) directly to the airport. The opening of a ring commuter line in 2006 was a pretty big sucess too, as was the opening of the metro ring line in 2019. I think what matters to a lot of people (and determines whether they'll use ring routes or not) is high frequencies. On the ring commuter line (not a complete ring) and metro ring trains run every 5-10 minutes or fewer.

The light-rail following the ring road which is currently under the construction is also projected to run at 5 minute intervals. I don't know how many will use it, but it connects almost all s-tog lines (Copenhagen's commuter train network) and thus definitely fulfills its function as an orbital line.

Projected ridership is 13-14 million a year, though that could be overly optimistic. Personally, I think in the medium-term it'll reach that number and then exceed it.

So yes, I think a combination of high-capacity and high-frequency radial and non-radial routes is right the way forward, at least in the long-term.

 

[johncrossley]

Well, from what I've seen and read in the press, it's certainly where a lot of the current expansion work and planning is currently going into. Perhaps one good example is people traveling to and from the airport, since up until recently, it was necessary for most people to take a trip into the city centre and then come back out again. Now, there's also some intercity and regional trains that by-pass Copenhagen central station and the centre more generally and end at the airport instead, forming a kind of semi orbital line connecting the west and south-west of Copenhagen (as well as well as the western suburbs and Aarhus/Odense, the second and third-largest cities in Denmark) directly to the airport. The opening of a ring commuter line in 2006 was a pretty big sucess too, as was the opening of the metro ring line in 2019. I think what matters to a lot of people (and determines whether they'll use ring routes or not) is high frequencies. On the ring commuter line (not a complete ring) and metro ring trains run every 5-10 minutes or fewer.

The light-rail following the ring road which is currently under the construction is also projected to run at 5 minute intervals. I don't know how many will use it, but it connects almost all s-tog lines (Copenhagen's commuter train network) and thus definitely fulfills its function as an orbital line.

Projected ridership is 13-14 million a year, though that could be overly optimistic. Personally, I think in the medium-term it'll reach that number and then exceed it.

So yes, I think a combination of high-capacity and high-frequency radial and non-radial routes is right the way forward, at least in the long-term.

To clarify my previous question, are people in Copenhagen willing to change from one vehicle to another? For example, are people willing to change from S-Tog to bus, or from metro to bus, or from bus to bus?

 

[tbtc]

I think it's important to point out that orbital routes aren't just meant for people who want to travel from one suburb to the next, but also relevant to all those who want to get to somewhere within the city (just not right in the centre), who would otherwise have to travel quite far (or even all the way) into the city centre and then come back out again.

Orbital bus routes do exist, but they can be slow, inconvenient and infrequent. Maybe I should rephrase my original sentence by saying that transport planners might not have entirely ignored, but certainly underestimated the importance of orbital routes (especially provided through higher capacity transport: such as BRT, light-rail, metro or even heavy rail) and are now slowly catching on to it. I suppose because suburbs across the UK are perhaps on average less densely populated than those in Paris, the support base for high capacity public transport would be smaller. On the other hand, leaving so many people de facto car-dependent cannot be the right answer either.

Bringing the conversation back to Strathclyde, does anyone know if the original document (can't access the link in the first post for some reason) mentioned anything about housing or urban planning? Presumably integrating transport in this way could be an opportunity to move towards more integrated forms of urban planning too. I mean, (the new) SPT would certainly be interested in newer developments being planned with public transport in mind and preferably in such a way that the support base is large enough for high-capacity or high-frequency services to make sense.

Sure, but where are the examples of "orbital" routes that don't exist which should?

A lot of city centres have lost some of their reason for being over the past generation - it used to be that the city centre was where people worked/ shopped/ had nights out - one bus service could cater to all of these markets

Now many people work in office parks built on cheaper land elsewhere, they shop in retail parks or "out of town" malls and the nights out that they have (in the era of Netflix/ pubs closing) can be catered for at Leisure Parks. Any new hospitals and football stadiums tend to be built further out of town than their predecessors

Take Sunderland as an example - you might work at Doxford Park, shop at Dalton Park and go to the cinema at Boldon, rarely needing to go into the city centre

But how do buses serve all of these different markets? How do you find a critical mass of sufficient bus passengers to make a service viable in an era where people aren't all working the same shift patterns/ pubs all calling last orders at the same time?

So, in Glasgow, there are enough people wanting to travel to the various hospitals to sustain the 8/34/90 (etc) as "orbital" routes, but what other links would you want to introduce? On paper I'd like orbital routes, I've no problem with suggesting them, but where? What missing links are there in Glasgow or other UK cities?

 

[Mrwerdna1]

To clarify my previous question, are people in Copenhagen willing to change from one vehicle to another? For example, are people willing to change from S-Tog to bus, or from metro to bus, or from bus to bus?

Yes and no. Ticketing is entirely integrated. You just tap in and out by smartcard just like with Oyster card, so changing from one mode of transport to the other is very easy. Maps and signage are also fairly intuitive and integrated, meaning that switching from metro to s-tog or to rail (and in future light-rail) is very easy and changing to the bus or between buses isn't really hard either. I certainly believe a lot of people change modes yes.

That said, people generally tend to prefer more "high quality" forms of transport than the "common bus". Even if buses are frequent (which they are on the so-called A-bus lines, Copenhagen has 6 of them and they run 24/7, every 5-10 minutes during the day), there are those commuters that predominantly stick to heavier forms of transport, such as rail, s-tog or metro, but frequently change from one line to the other, yes.

You've got to remember that a lot of people cycle in Copenhagen, so going through the faff of changing to a bus isn't what some consider worthwhile if they can cycle to and from s-tog/metro/train stations instead. Taking your bike with you on the s-tog is also free of charge and there's spacious bike carriages. That said, the frequency (and intuitiveness) of the A-bus lines do make them quite popular, although the most popular bus-line is line 5C, which is almost a BRT type line, because it's an articulated bus with lots of standing room, boarding is possibly through all of the doors and there's frequent use of bus-lanes and segregated bus-tracks to speed up the service.

But yes, there are more and more commuters who use a number of different lines and modes to get from A to B, which is possible because frequencies are high and ticketing is integrated.

 

[johncrossley]

But how do buses serve all of these different markets? How do you find a critical mass of sufficient bus passengers to make a service viable in an era where people aren't all working the same shift patterns/ pubs all calling last orders at the same time?

The idea is that you use a combination of routes to get from A to B. You can't get a critical mass of passengers to make a single direct bus viable unless it goes to a city centre or hospital or other major destination. Hence my last question to @Mrwerdna1. If people are willing to change vehicles then the number of potential journey opportunities increases dramatically. If you assume that only a direct bus is worth using, then you are basically stuck with the existing situation with buses totally out of the market for all trips other than those to the city centre, with cars used for all other trips.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

Sure, but where are the examples of "orbital" routes that don't exist which should?

So, in Glasgow, there are enough people wanting to travel to the various hospitals to sustain the 8/34/90 (etc) as "orbital" routes, but what other links would you want to introduce? On paper I'd like orbital routes, I've no problem with suggesting them, but where? What missing links are there in Glasgow or other UK cities?

Well, in the case of Glasgow, I wouldn't be great at providing specifics, I'll openly admit that. I think what is key though is that orbital routes are integrated with radial routes and upgraded to high-frequency and high-capacity transport over time. It's bad enough that buses aren't properly integrated with Scotrail services and the underground, but that's made worse by the fact that they're sometimes slow or infrequent as well.

Setting that aside, it's interesting that you should mention shopping centres, because in Zurich the refurbishment of a big shopping centre on the outskirts of the city, which, I believe, is still the busiest in Switzerland, was planned in conjunction with the opening of a new orbital tram/light-rail line 10 years ago. Yes, a lot of people still drive to the shopping centre, but there's now a lot who use the tram too, seeing there's the option. The tram/light-rail (it uses trams as rolling stock, but is entirely segregated) links a number of the suburbs, several commuter rail lines and the airport.

 

[adrock1976]

I don't think that planners "ignore" orbital routes, it's more that there needs to be enough of a market to pay for a bus

Taking Glasgow as an example (since this is a Strathclyde thread), there are orbital routes (8/ 34/ 89/ 90 etc) but these tend to involve the Queen Elizabeth/ Victoria/ Royal Infirmary or the main University area (Byers Road etc) - or the shopping centres at Parkhead/ The Fort in the case of the 46

But there are several examples of two nearby places which both have a frequent bus service into the city centre but have very little in the way of commercial services between them (e.g. Tolcross to Cambuslang - both have a reasonable population but what is there in one suburb that the other lacks - people travel from their suburb to the city centre/ hospital/ shopping centre etc but is there much demand to swap your suburb for another suburb?). The same is true further out of Glasgow as the surrounding towns have good frequencies into the city but not much in the way of commercial services from Cumbernauld to Airdrie/ Coatbridge or from Dumbarton to Paisley or Paisley to East Kilbride (similarly the Cumbernauld - Motherwell trains are probably the ones with the lightest loadings in the area, because there's not much in Cumbernauld that you can't get in Motherwell and vice versa, whereas services into the big city open up a lot of opportunities)

Orbital routes have been dwindling away in other cities over the years as demand gets spread thinner between various destinations - you could run orbital links but without a major "out of town" destination like a hospital/ shopping centre it's hard to find much of a market

Regarding Cumbernauld - Airdrie, there is the SPT subsidised 147/247 routes that run from Kilsyth (Mon - Sat evenings and all day Sundays as the 147) and Kirkintilloch (247, Mon - Sat daytime. This used to start back from Milngavie Station via Torrance) to Monklands Hospital, as this is the closest hospital to the New Town of Cumbernauld in the NHS Lanarkshire area. Monklands is due to be relocated to the Wester Moffat area of Airdrie, which I believe is also tied in with the eastern link road that is proposed to be built. It is also planned for Cumbernauld to have a "treatment centre" rather than an ordinary hospital as well in the future.

The present day Dalmuir-Glasgow Central Low Level-Blantyre-Motherwell-Cumbernauld trains date back to the second half of the 1990s when the electric trains terminated at Coatbridge Central with there being a diesel shuttle Motherwell - Cumbernauld. The cynic in me is that it was most likely to make the former Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council (before 1975, Cumbernauld was in Dunbartonshire and also had the Development Corporation (which should be brought back, being as North Lanarkshire Council do very little), with Kilsyth formerly being in Stirlingshire) feel a part of the present day North Lanarkshire Council being as their headquarters are based in Motherwell. Also, the present day trains along the Cumbernauld - Coatbridge Central - Motherwell section do not connect well at Motherwell into and out of the trains heading towards Carlisle and points south.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Sure, but where are the examples of "orbital" routes that don't exist which should?

A lot of city centres have lost some of their reason for being over the past generation - it used to be that the city centre was where people worked/ shopped/ had nights out - one bus service could cater to all of these markets

Now many people work in office parks built on cheaper land elsewhere, they shop in retail parks or "out of town" malls and the nights out that they have (in the era of Netflix/ pubs closing) can be catered for at Leisure Parks. Any new hospitals and football stadiums tend to be built further out of town than their predecessors

Take Sunderland as an example - you might work at Doxford Park, shop at Dalton Park and go to the cinema at Boldon, rarely needing to go into the city centre

But how do buses serve all of these different markets? How do you find a critical mass of sufficient bus passengers to make a service viable in an era where people aren't all working the same shift patterns/ pubs all calling last orders at the same time?

So, in Glasgow, there are enough people wanting to travel to the various hospitals to sustain the 8/34/90 (etc) as "orbital" routes, but what other links would you want to introduce? On paper I'd like orbital routes, I've no problem with suggesting them, but where? What missing links are there in Glasgow or other UK cities?

You do raise a number of very important points. There has been increasing fragmentation of things like workplace locations. However, another key issue is the decline of the high street; tough enough in those city centres but even more pronounced in those secondary locations that used to be able to justify some sort of high street pull. Thinking of spots like Clydebank

Well, in the case of Glasgow, I wouldn't be great at providing specifics, I'll openly admit that. I think what is key though is that orbital routes are integrated with radial routes and upgraded to high-frequency and high-capacity transport over time. It's bad enough that buses aren't properly integrated with Scotrail services and the underground, but that's made worse by the fact that they're sometimes slow or infrequent as well.

Setting that aside, it's interesting that you should mention shopping centres, because in Zurich the refurbishment of a big shopping centre on the outskirts of the city, which, I believe, is still the busiest in Switzerland, was planned in conjunction with the opening of a new orbital tram/light-rail line 10 years ago. Yes, a lot of people still drive to the shopping centre, but there's now a lot who use the tram too, seeing there's the option. The tram/light-rail (it uses trams as rolling stock, but is entirely segregated) links a number of the suburbs, several commuter rail lines and the airport.

Sounds like the sort of expenditure that is some way off in Glasgow

 

[route101]

I remember East Kilbride to Paisley/Glasgow Airport/Silverburn/Braehead routes never worked. The 90 is useful but its unreliable and only ever half hourly at best. The 34 is better as it runs more frequently.

 

[PaulMc7]

I remember East Kilbride to Paisley/Glasgow Airport/Silverburn/Braehead routes never worked. The 90 is useful but its unreliable and only ever half hourly at best. The 34 is better as it runs more frequently.

The 90 is busy enough in certain parts of the route to be every 20 mins IMO but it's incredibly hit or miss. The south side of it seems to be quieter than the north from experience. Rutherglen to Partick could easily be 20 mins but the rest isn't always as busy. Even multiple Clydebank to Braehead routes by different companies failed miserably too. Swapping at Thornwood to the 77 is the best option now.

I wonder if a direct route from the north of the Clyde would work to Silverburn but realistically it would be so unreliable given the amount of traffic issues around the Clyde Tunnel and Cardonald and Pollok so probably a non starter.

If you asked everyone in the city what they'd need from the transport network I'd say 24 hour services would be mentioned more than anything. I don't think there's many links missing in what's there currently because what's there is what stayed when the rest fell because people didn't use it.

 

[scotraildriver]

All very familiar, 40 years ago.