Government pledges £5bn for bus services and cycling routes

radamfi said:

1.4 x almost nothing = almost nothing. Again, talking about increases or decreases is meaningless when only the absolute level is what counts. Cycle rates are nowhere near the levels that would lead to a significant reduction in bus usage. Bus companies can rest easy because Britain is not competent enough to do cycling properly. Mode share in English speaking countries lag behind almost all other countries, never mind Denmark or the Netherlands.

Click to expand...

I know you like to move the goal posts in any debate so your non-existent transport utopia comes always reigns supreme, but let's be serious here. The average elevation of the Netherlands is the lowest in Europe, and depending on which website you use, the second or third lowest in the world, promptly followed by Denmark. The golf course on the Maldives hardly gives much competition.

Arnhem is a mere 13m above sea-level. I change elevation greater than that walking to my nearest bus stop. The highest point in the country is a mere 322m above sea level, and even that is shared with two other countries. I have stood on top of it (having eschewed the bus and walked up from Vaals), and I've walked more strenuous hills in suburban Manchester, let alone Rome. 95% of the Netherlands is at an elevation lower than my house on a fairly insignificant hill in the North Downs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geogr...File:Hypsometric_curve_of_the_Netherlands.svg.

It is also the densest populated country in Europe (city states aside), so how does this work with your argument that you don't need density to have a good public transport model?

There may be wind, but it is substantially easier to cycle on flat or near flat ground in wind than uphill. It is hardly surprising the modal share is so high, even if it had UK-style infrastructure.

The fact remains that there are a variety of reasons why cycling infrastructure isn't as good as it could be, and, much like the grey vote, one of them is the voting power of car drivers. @TheGrandWazoo has already commented that it is no surprise there has been no increase in fuel duty since 2011. Even where there is 'perfect' infrastructure such as London, there are still claims that the 'average' cyclist doesn't feel comfortable using it because of the attitude of the 'lycra lunatics' using it like a motorway. Or rather like the 'gentleman' who felt the need to F-and-blind at our coach driver this morning for daring to pull away from the traffic lights without letting him go first because he felt it more appropriate to be in the traffic lane on the right-hand side of the coach rather than the expensive infrastructure provided on the left-hand side of the coach for his own safety?

There would also be more cycling if we got to a position where in medium-sized towns and villages you had almost every shop providing a bike stand that you wouldn't need to lock your bike to for fear of people stealing it when you pick up a couple of pastries, as used to be the case where I lived in Germany.

Anyway, back to Buses...

TheGrandWazoo said:

350,000 journeys by bike every week in Bristol.... still, they could all be driving instead.

Besides, you always talk about English speaking countries....when actually what you really mean in Netherlands, Switzerland, bits of Germany, and Denmark. Plenty of other non-English speaking European countries where things are markedly different. You don't see masses of cyclists in places like Portugal or Italy (despite the performance cycling culture in Italy).

Click to expand...

How many trips are made in Bristol every week? We would then get the modal share.

TheGrandWazoo said:

350,000 journeys by bike every week in Bristol.... still, they could all be driving instead.

Besides, you always talk about English speaking countries....when actually what you really mean in Netherlands, Switzerland, bits of Germany, and Denmark. Plenty of other non-English speaking European countries where things are markedly different. You don't see masses of cyclists in places like Portugal or Italy (despite the performance cycling culture in Italy).

Click to expand...

Exactly. Rather along the lines of "continental cafe culture" (where they actually meant what he experienced in his holidays in France - good luck with finding that in Germany), "Europe" is often presented as a homogenous blob when in fact, every country, and even every region, has a slightly different culture to the UK, no different to the oft-proclaimed "metropolitan bubble" here.

It's not only cycling that is dubious in Italy. The bus service I used most often in Rome ran approximately every 17 minutes, with buses running at different times each hour even if you did manage to get two hours at near 15 minutes. In the UK, that would be considered a timetabled service. In Rome, you just loiter at a bus stop and hope one comes. No printed Kursbuch either... I tried to find a map: the tourist information centre sent me to the bus company, who sent me to the tourist information centre.

The bus I used in South Jutland had a timetable divided into "Weekdays and Saturdays", "Saturdays" and "Sundays and Holidays". How was I meant to know which one worked on Saturdays? Or that there weren't two buses each hour at the same time, but one bus, which could carry either number, that would take me to a petrol station 15 minutes down the road where I would be able to change buses to the other destination (and I can understand enough written Danish to make this out). (The times have now changed for the better, but it used to be routes 10 and 20 in Sydtrafik, now 110 and 220).

duncombec said:

Arnhem is a mere 13m above sea-level. I change elevation greater than that walking to my nearest bus stop. The highest point in the country is a mere 322m above sea level, and even that is shared with two other countries. I have stood on top of it (having eschewed the bus and walked up from Vaals), and I've walked more strenuous hills in suburban Manchester, let alone Rome. 95% of the Netherlands is at an elevation lower than my house on a fairly insignificant hill in the North Downs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geogr...File:Hypsometric_curve_of_the_Netherlands.svg.

It is also the densest populated country in Europe (city states aside), so how does this work with your argument that you don't need density to have a good public transport model?

Click to expand...

There are some steep hills in the suburbs of Arnhem. You can see them on trolleybuses. The vast majority of the English population live under 100 metres above sea level.

England has the second highest population density outside the Netherlands and city states, so is also in a fortunate position when it comes to potential for alternatives to car use, especially given that large chunks of the north and south-west are largely uninhabited. England south of Preston and east of Bristol is probably more densely populated than the Netherlands. Dutch population is less concentrated in big cities (which is more optimal for public transport) but is spread across a large number of medium sized towns.

Public transport in the Netherlands is excellent, yet because of the dominance of cycling there is extremely low public transport mode share, something like 3%. You hardly need buses when you can cycle everywhere.

TheGrandWazoo said:

Besides, you always talk about English speaking countries....when actually what you really mean in Netherlands, Switzerland, bits of Germany, and Denmark. Plenty of other non-English speaking European countries where things are markedly different. You don't see masses of cyclists in places like Portugal or Italy (despite the performance cycling culture in Italy).

Click to expand...

See the graph on page 4

https://www.government.nl/binaries/.../01/cycling-facts-2018/Cycling+facts+2018.pdf

The countries at the right of the graph are Ireland, UK, Canada, US and Australia.

radamfi said:

See the graph on page 4

https://www.government.nl/binaries/.../01/cycling-facts-2018/Cycling+facts+2018.pdf

The countries at the right of the graph are Ireland, UK, Canada, US and Australia.

Click to expand...

That graph does not include figures for the countries @TheGrandWazoo mentioned. The figures are also from 2012, which would not take into account the recent uptick in cycling in London, let alone the rest of the country.

I know from experience that Germany and Denmark tend to be orientated towards the immediate local area, so it is not surprising there is such a high modal share for journeys under 5 km (3 miles) - and let's not forget the topographic argument. Is this true of the Netherlands and Sweden? It is not true of the UK, where we are generally more used to having to travel further to reach services and work. In the UK, a commute of an hour or more seems quite normal. In Germany, a drive of 30 minutes to the nearest larger city seemed about the limits of what people would accept.

Personally, I find the figures on pages 6 and 7 more interesting, as they explain the reasons for the increase in bike use, which you have been rather quiet about - notably substantially lower among migrants (who walk or use public transport), substantially lower in the south (hillier?) part of the country, and that there are still some stark differences across the country, just as there would be elsewhere.

Is there a similar statistics pack for public transport use?

radamfi said:

T [...] The vast majority of the English population live under 100 metres above sea level.

Click to expand...

I can't find a source for this on a quick search. Would you oblige?

radamfi said:

England has the second highest population density outside the Netherlands and city states, so is also in a fortunate position when it comes to potential for alternatives to car use, especially given that large chunks of the north and south-west are largely uninhabited. England south of Preston and east of Bristol is probably more densely populated than the Netherlands. Dutch population is less concentrated in big cities (which is more optimal for public transport) but is spread across a large number of medium sized towns.

Click to expand...

England? Do Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland not count? I am getting differing figures again depending on which website you use - more still if you consider "lived in density" (such as http://theconversation.com/think-yo...-about-population-density-across-europe-90345), which suggests Spain is the most densely populated when "lived in" density is taken into consideration. Belgium in particular seems to suffer from wide fluctuations in stated density, higher figures tending to relegate "England" to third.

radamfi said:

Public transport in the Netherlands is excellent, yet because of the dominance of cycling there is extremely low public transport mode share, something like 3%. You hardly need buses when you can cycle everywhere.

Click to expand...

Is it excellent because the modal share is so low, so it can be "best practiced" easier?

radamfi said:

See the graph on page 4

https://www.government.nl/binaries/.../01/cycling-facts-2018/Cycling+facts+2018.pdf

The countries at the right of the graph are Ireland, UK, Canada, US and Australia.

Click to expand...

You're not getting it. It is simple to point out the exemplars and say "English speaking countries" are otherwise. The fact is that Netherlands, Denmark and Germany are the outliers (and good for them) and that there are plenty of countries that aren't English speaking that are also poor. UK cycling modal share on that graph is 2%... France is 3%. Whilst Sweden can manage 9%, Norway is also at 4% - slovenly there from people barely better than the French! What does that tell you about two neighbouring countries and their respective approaches, cultures etc?

Meanwhile, look at Italian cities (not quoted) and you see that modal share in cities like Rome and Turin is 1% and 3% respectively. The reality is a lot more nuanced than you are suggesting. Europe is not some homogeneous lump where it's all great - there are great variations as your graph illustrates between the superb (NL) and the good (DK, DE) and countries barely better than the UK.

And yes, I do hope that UK cities in general get a slug of investment that allows buses to move freely and cyclists to be able to get around more safely without fear of traffic and we should aspire to move the needle. However, it requires significant investment, political bravery and a revised cultural approach to achieve this. Denmark have made reducing car use and improving public transport/cycle use as a central part of their urban planning discliplines since the 1950s.

ps Modal share in Bristol is somewhat of a questionable stat as the DfT figures relate to traffic counts on major arterial routes where cyclists aren't going to be present (M32) or will use broadly parallel but discrete routes (e.g. A4 or A432 vs. Bristol to Bath cycleroute). BCC's figures have a better methodology and put it at 8%.

duncombec said:

England? Do Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland not count?

Click to expand...

Not in this discussion! This bus and cycling funding announced is for England only. The other countries have their own governments responsible for transport.

ashkeba said:

Not in this discussion! This bus and cycling funding announced is for England only. The other countries have their own governments responsible for transport.

Click to expand...

That's what you get for joining in the discussion at work when you should be doing other things!

Oddly, it seems quite common to give the population density of the relevant parts of the British Isles separately - yet not so much in other countries where the constituent parts have as much, if not more autonomy. I;m just going to claim sticking with England massages the figures!

£5bn over five years, so £1bn a year. As a comparison, ENCTS costs £1.3bn a year. The money is welcome and could make a real difference to discretionary bus spending, though I suspect it will actually be swallowed up by the chronic underfunding of the ENCTS.

Tetchytyke said:

£5bn over five years, so £1bn a year. As a comparison, ENCTS costs £1.3bn a year. The money is welcome and could make a real difference to discretionary bus spending, though I suspect it will actually be swallowed up by the chronic underfunding of the ENCTS.

Click to expand...

Part of it is for cycling so will be for capital projects, the 4000 electrics will take a serious part of it as well. The rest is likely to be either allocated to bus related capital projects or ring fenced into projects that the local MP can front so I cant see any of it ending up with councils to spend as they want.