Poor quality passenger rail service increases demand for private car purchases

[Malaxa]

Counterpoint: new car sales at 30 year low https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64165689

How did this thread continue so far beyond the above definitive response to the OP? Otherwise it's pure speculation.

 

[A0wen]

I'm guessing by bus, car and train which would have been very congested. I wonder how much of IKEA's success in Croydon is driven by having the tram stop nearby.

Not much.

That retail park has been busy for 30+ years - the Ikea opened back in 1992.

 

[greyman42]

Which tells me nothing.

You asked and i answered. What did you want to know?

 

[GoneSouth]

Agreed. Especially as the bus could serve Newville which is two miles from the railway but didn't exist when it was built 150 years ago and go into Largeville town centre which is a mile from the station up a steep hill.

And will quietly disappear into history after 1-2 years of operation, leaving all those nice new places without any transport links other than cars.

 

[Class142sbad]

It just feels odd that in a world where we are pushing for sustainability and mental health, we are seeing more and more people turning to cars because the public transport is like a chocolate teapot. Cars are known to be bad for the environment and to cause stress while driving. It also doesn't help with the service cuts and unreliability we see on the railway and buses.

 

[The Ham]

And will quietly disappear into history after 1-2 years of operation, leaving all those nice new places without any transport links other than cars.

Often because there's limited joined up thinking.

One project I worked on the council wanted one bus route extended, which would have taken an age to get to the town centre as it passed through another estate.

We proposed extending a row from the far side of town passed the hospital and to the site, the bus company loved it. It gave the site access to the hospital (not offered on the other route), a faster town center journey time and a cross town connection which didn't exist before (including to the hospital from the far side).

 

[Master29]

I get twenty boxes a year for FREE travel and I wouldnt use the railways at the moment. Its a joke. Hopefully there will be something left of it when this farce ends.

You asked and i answered. What did you want to know?

It was the quote where the above member referenced boxes. Boxes of what?. Unless he means something else entirely which is possible. This was the entire quote.

 

[nanstallon]

I view the current situation on the railways as a little paradoxical.

We need more passengers to increase revenue and be able to end the industrial disputes.

We need to end the industrial disputes to appear reliable enough to encourage passengers to return.

I think the railway are shooting themselves in the foot a little, especially when they are still set on following the pre-Covid pricing model (which is based on commuting). I also wonder if those striking truly realise the damage they are doing to the reputation (and longer term viability) of the railway.

It seems quite clear that commuting (less so) and business trips using rail are (to a certain extent) a thing of the past. The railway is now a predominantly leisure transport service, and absolutely should be marketing and adjusting itself as such.

As a resident on the WCML, I don’t feel inclined to use the train for a day out as I can’t rely on it (or the return to get me home) to run. As a result, I’m likely to use the car. That, combined with the fact that booking anything in advance is likely to coincide with a strike day, puts me off booking any rail journey more than 2-3 weeks away. I say this as a very passionate supporter of the railways (outside of the current industrial dispute).

Can you blame people for wanting to buy and use a car when the very system that is designed and intended to limit the need for car use is so unreliable that it directly encourages it through its actions?

Hole in one. Reliability is the key.

 

[43066]

It was the quote where the above member referenced boxes. Boxes of what?. Unless he means something else entirely which is possible. This was the entire quote.

Staff (and I think some retired staff) are entitled to leisure travel passes that they can use a certain number of times, with a box to be initialled by guard/ticket inspector on each use. The passes are informally referred to as “boxes”.

I suspect that’s what he was talking about.

 

[Llandudno]

And I still think a choice like "train every 2 hours vs. hourly integrated bus" should be offered in such places. It won't be, though.

Maybe, although I suspect a train every 2 hours would carry more passengers than an hourly bus.

Who is going to make a journey to the likes of Blaenau Ffestiniog, Appleby, Kyle of Lochalsh to travel on a bus?

Are more people travelling to Okehampton by train than ever did before by a more frequent bus?

Who is going to leave their car on the drive to travel by bus?

And will quietly disappear into history after 1-2 years of operation, leaving all those nice new places without any transport links other than cars.

Absolutely!

 

[miklcct]

Who is going to leave their car on the drive to travel by bus?

When there are tolls or difficulties to find parking spaces.

 

[Llandudno]

When there are tolls or difficulties to find parking spaces.

Unlikely that these deterrents will apply in places whereby a poorly used rail service maybe closed and replaced by a bus though?

 

[riceuten]

A car magazine that sells cars reports that more cars are being sold and that you should buy more cars and stop taking the train - who'd've thunk it, eh ? No conflict of interests there.

With an added soupçon of "the government should sort the rail unions out once and for all" for all the Clarksons in the audience.

 

[Dai Corner]

Maybe, although I suspect a train every 2 hours would carry more passengers than an hourly bus.

Who is going to make a journey to the likes of Blaenau Ffestiniog, Appleby, Kyle of Lochalsh to travel on a bus?

Should taxpayers' funds be used to subsidise tourism?

The Conwy Valley, as you probably know judging by your username, is served by both bus and train and I believe railway tickets are valid on the bus as well. Presumably some travel by bus in one direction.

Are more people travelling to Okehampton by train than ever did before by a more frequent bus?

Don't know, but the priorities given to different reopenings seem arbritary. Portishead, with massive congestion on the road into Bristol, is still waiting, for example.

The Ebbw Vale branch reopening has killed the bus service into Cardiff, depriving towns without a station of a service. I wonder if the same will happen to the places served by the Okehampton-Exeter bus but not the train?

And [the rail replacement bus] will quietly disappear into history after 1-2 years of operation, leaving all those nice new places without any transport links other than cars.

If a passenger flow can't support a commercial bus service or justify a local authority subsidy perhaps the car (subsidised if necessary for social reasons) is the appropriate mode? Almost certainly a railway isn't.

 

[urbophile]

Should taxpayers' funds be used to subsidise tourism?

Why not? Tourism (sustainably managed) does benefit many regions, provide jobs, and keep communities viable. If it's badly managed it can do the opposite of course. But it's to the benefit of all of us to have it otherwise.

 

[Thirteen]

Why not? Tourism (sustainably managed) does benefit many regions, provide jobs, and keep communities viable. If it's badly managed it can do the opposite of course. But it's to the benefit of all of us to have it otherwise.

I'm sure taxpayers do pay for tourism but perhaps indirectly. Thing like Visit Britain are part of DCMS.

 

[Dai Corner]

Why not? Tourism (sustainably managed) does benefit many regions, provide jobs, and keep communities viable. If it's badly managed it can do the opposite of course. But it's to the benefit of all of us to have it otherwise.

I'll rephrase my question: Is keeping an unnecessary (from a capacity point of view) second transport network going the best way to subsidise tourism?

 

[AM9]

I'll rephrase my question: Is keeping an unnecessary (from a capacity point of view) second transport network going the best way to subsidise tourism?

If it attracts enough tourists to make the investment profitable yes. Tourists are unlikely to flock to an area where a minimalist bus service justified on the local's use is the only public transport available.

 

[Dai Corner]

If it attracts enough tourists to make the investment profitable yes. Tourists are unlikely to flock to an area where a minimalist bus service justified on the local's use is the only public transport available.

Would you say the examples given in a previous post (Conwy Valley, Settle-Appleby-Carlisle and Kyle of Localsh) are profitable, either directly or on a wider cost-benefit basis?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who is going to make a journey to the likes of Blaenau Ffestiniog, Appleby, Kyle of Lochalsh to travel on a bus?

That's an enthusiast view - most people go somewhere because they want to be there, not for the journey itself.

OTOH my personal view is that the best way to do the Conwy Valley is to Blaenau by train and back by bus. The Crimea Pass is truly spectacular too!

 

[brad465]

It just feels odd that in a world where we are pushing for sustainability and mental health, we are seeing more and more people turning to cars because the public transport is like a chocolate teapot. Cars are known to be bad for the environment and to cause stress while driving. It also doesn't help with the service cuts and unreliability we see on the railway and buses.

Probably too many interests at play influencing the levers of power to avoid the car, aviation and petroleum industries going down the drain. It's even worse in the US, where airlines have very notably lobbied against high-speed rail being built on key popular flight corridors domestically.

Ultimately when it comes to public transport it's decline or expansion is a feedback loop: if you don't invest in it, less users rely on it, driving down patronage and revenue, so this leads to more service cuts, which in turn causes more users to leave it behind, and so on. What is needed is the reverse, to put some serious investment into it, improving frequency, access and reliability, which will attract more users and bring in more revenue to support further improvements.

 

[The Ham]

Should taxpayers' funds be used to subsidise tourism?

It depends.

I'll rephrase my question: Is keeping an unnecessary (from a capacity point of view) second transport network going the best way to subsidise tourism?

It still depends.

If without the tourism there's fewer jobs, so less tax revenue and more benefit payments, then there could be a good justification for supporting the railway.

However to know that would require someone to look at the data. Which is what I've been saying all along - cuts but only if they are justified in the same manner as reopenings are justified.

If cuts are the right thing to do, let's be transparent about them.

Otherwise it's just opinion, or worse political dogma, and that's not a good way to make decisions.

 

[Dai Corner]

It depends.



It still depends.

If without the tourism there's fewer jobs, so less tax revenue and more benefit payments, then there could be a good justification for supporting the railway.

However to know that would require someone to look at the data. Which is what I've been saying all along - cuts but only if they are justified in the same manner as reopenings are justified.

If cuts are the right thing to do, let's be transparent about them.

Otherwise it's just opinion, or worse political dogma, and that's not a good way to make decisions.

Agreed. It might appear that losing the railway enthusiasts and tourists who don't/can't drive, won't use a bus or coach but will use the train wouldn't make a significant difference to a tourist destination but some hard figures and analysis would be useful to see.

 

[Master29]

Staff (and I think some retired staff) are entitled to leisure travel passes that they can use a certain number of times, with a box to be initialled by guard/ticket inspector on each use. The passes are informally referred to as “boxes”.

I suspect that’s what he was talking about.

Thanks very much. I did wonder if it meant something like that.

 

[The Ham]

Agreed. It might appear that losing the railway enthusiasts and tourists who don't/can't drive, won't use a bus or coach but will use the train wouldn't make a significant difference to a tourist destination but some hard figures and analysis would be useful to see.

In terms of what's in the public domain this is very limited.

Mostly what available is the likes of quarterly income data (whole network), quarterly passenger numbers or km by TOC.

Unless anyone knows any other sources.

 

[karlbbb]

I'm fortunate in that I live with good rail service (Merseyrail - 15 minute services during my work commute times and generally very reliable despite the 40+ year old stock), I live extremely close (200m) to my nearest station, and my work place is 100m from on of Liverpool's central stations, so for me commuting could not be any more convenient, even more so if I fancy a few beverages of an evening.

The biggest sticking point for me is actually cost - thanks to having an EV sat on the drive, my commuting cost for a year would be ~£500 including subsidised city centre parking while an annual Merseyrail ticket to cover my journey is now £795. So I have to weigh up whether £300/year is worth it to avoid the 10 minute walk from our car park to office instead of a 30 second walk from the exit of the station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

£25 a month not to have to drive in urban traffic? Where do I sign up?

Most people I know who live near a Merseyrail station would simply never even consider another means of getting to Liverpool city centre (other than some Lancashire pass holders who when not in a hurry would use the bus as it's free). It has a pull almost as good as the Tube, though its coverage is a bit poor.

 

[cactustwirly]

£25 a month not to have to drive in urban traffic? Where do I sign up?

Most people I know who live near a Merseyrail station would simply never even consider another means of getting to Liverpool city centre (other than some Lancashire pass holders who when not in a hurry would use the bus as it's free). It has a pull almost as good as the Tube, though its coverage is a bit poor.

Depends if that's worth an extra half an hour added to the commute time.

My work is over a mile from the nearest station....

 

[squizzler]

£25 a month not to have to drive in urban traffic? Where do I sign up?

A good example of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing!

I would like to know how the usage of lift and passenger matching services such as "BlaBlaCar" that specialise in long distance travel has changed during the strike period. If there really is a large number of people keen to avoid taking the train during strikes and corresponding number of the motorist community needing financial help with their hobby, this should be massively up. Unfortunately the firm has not to my knowledge posted in relation to the UK strikes.

Unlike frustrated rail passengers choosing to buy, borrow or steal a car, switching to BlaBlaCar could be done straight away and is therefore a quicker barometer to as to whether the problems on the railway are deterring customers.

The great thing is that SNCF is a shareholder so people who abandon the train for car will still be supporting (somebody else's) railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Under no circumstances would I use Blablacar, and I suspect most British people over about 25 are the same (younger people tend to be more sociable and less risk-averse). Inviting a stranger into your car is like inviting them into your house (or vice versa). It's totally different to sitting next to them on a train where neither has precedent over the other and the "environment" is managed by a third party (the TOC).

On the other hand, Mitfahrzentralen (ride share shops, sort of) were a thing in Germany long before the Internet, particularly in and around universities, so maybe that's just British reserve which isn't the same in other countries.