Accrington - New Bus Station 'exorbitant charges'

[SCH117X]

I thought most bus stations had charges. I know my Mother when on coach holidays has seen it.
In Nottingham the city operator pulled it's services out of both bus stations as soon as it could - presumably to cut cost - vyears ago. And if you look at Yourbus in the city only one of it's routes uses a bus station - presumably to cut cost, and yet both the city's bus stations have empty bays.

NCT never made much use of the bus stations, Victoria only was used because of single joint service with Trent and Broad Marsh due to the joint Clifton servcies with South Notts and West Bridgford UDC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But they could have built massive bus stations like what they have in Greater Manchester and Lancashire with all routes going there. We don't hear about how great bus usage is in Burnley or Preston, but we do hear about Oxford and Edinburgh.

Nottingham has two small bus stations at the north and south extremes of city centre. The city centre is very spread out and it takes about 15 minutes to walk between the two bus stations up a steep hill.

You must be walking the wrong way!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If most bus passengers only go to the town centre by bus, you aren't going to get a high bus modal share, although that may well be the case in most towns in this country. Where you have high patronage, such as in the main towns in Switzerland, buses/trams cater for a wide range of trips because there is less emphasis on radial routes. This has been discussed at length on previous threads.

That said, even if you look at British bus networks which are typically geared up to serving the town/city centre almost exclusively, there are often one or more stops in the centre other than the bus station which are well used.

For example in Edinburgh, buses stop at several stops along Princes Street which most routes serve. It is a long street which could not really be served adequately by one bus station. Haymarket station is also a popular stop. Even in Crawley, population only about 100,000, within the town centre there is the bus station, the Broadway stop and also the Leisure Park.

Incidentally, I would class Crawley as a better bus station than average. Most people reading this would probably think it sucks because it is only two rows of bus shelters. But it is next to the rail station (although you have to cross a busy road) and the main shopping centre.

Obviously places like Plymouth Bretonside can only be viewed in a wholly negative way. However, I also suspect that even state-of-the-art bus stations like what they have in Greater Manchester have a deterrent effect in that people may feel vulnerable in such an enclosed place, especially at quiet times like the evening and Sunday. They have tried to make them as tall and bright as possible, yet it is still an enclosed bus station. TfGM resorted to manning bus stations even late in the evening to make people feel safe. I'm not sure if budget cuts have stopped this, but the point is, the whole bus station concept has led to this being deemed something that was felt to be needed. You don't get such a feeling of subjective danger at bus stops along the street.

.

Really....?

People feeling vulnerable in an enclosed space? Any evidence to back up this assertion? Do you not think MORE people might feel more vulnerable just out on the street in a shelter? Let alone the issue of being exposed to the wet and cold British weather?

It is telling that, in your mind, the epitome of a good bus station is about whether it is close to the rail station (thus benefitting a relatively small number of passengers) as opposed to the town centre that benefits many more. And if you're telling me that in most towns, the single biggest traffic objective isn't the town centre, then I'm afraid that flies in the face of experience.

As for Edinburgh, we're not talking about local buses. We're talking about inter-urban services that run in from Dalkeith or Musselburgh or Penicuik or Gala that, in my youth, all terminated in St Andrews Square bus station. The redevelopment and taking of space for other use led to the removal of most interurban buses as a consequence.

For large cities and even most towns, the high frequency local services probably have little justification for other than roadside stops; in fact, saw tooth designs can cope with more frequent headways. However, for less frequent interurban services where passengers may have longer to wait, then a centrally located bus station in the town centre makes sense.

If you're telling me that it would be better to have a situation as per Darlington, rather than the situation in Middlesbrough, then I'm afraid we have to differ.

 

[radamfi]

Really....?

People feeling vulnerable in an enclosed space? Any evidence to back up this assertion? Do you not think MORE people might feel more vulnerable just out on the street in a shelter? Let alone the issue of being exposed to the wet and cold British weather?

It is telling that, in your mind, the epitome of a good bus station is about whether it is close to the rail station (thus benefitting a relatively small number of passengers) as opposed to the town centre that benefits many more. And if you're telling me that in most towns, the single biggest traffic objective isn't the town centre, then I'm afraid that flies in the face of experience.

As for Edinburgh, we're not talking about local buses. We're talking about inter-urban services that run in from Dalkeith or Musselburgh or Penicuik or Gala that, in my youth, all terminated in St Andrews Square bus station. The redevelopment and taking of space for other use led to the removal of most interurban buses as a consequence.

For large cities and even most towns, the high frequency local services probably have little justification for other than roadside stops; in fact, saw tooth designs can cope with more frequent headways. However, for less frequent interurban services where passengers may have longer to wait, then a centrally located bus station in the town centre makes sense.

If you're telling me that it would be better to have a situation as per Darlington, rather than the situation in Middlesbrough, then I'm afraid we have to differ.

Actually I don't think we are that far apart. Long distance coaches definitely should have a coach station. Coach stations exist in most countries. City services don't need them. We agree on both those things. Inter-urban is where we disagree.

I think inter-urban services should go to the rail station. They should still, however, serve stops in the town centre, and they generally do in mainland Europe. If you travel around on buses in mainland Europe you generally get equal numbers getting on at the station and in the city centre if they are a long way apart. They've got the money, they could have built another bus station in the town centre if they thought it was worth it. You do get the odd Bushof in Germany that is not at the rail station, but the buses generally call at the rail station as well in a smaller city. Obviously in a big city you get buses/trams/metros in all directions with many routes not serving the city centre at all. Then you tend to get bus stations at outlying metro stations.

Bus station safety is an issue, certainly in the bigger cities. GMPTE/TfGM have tried various initiatives to make people feel safer in their bus stations. For a number of years they closed off most of their bus stations in the evenings and Sundays so that services only used a few stands. That led to the confusing situation that services would have a different stand in the evenings and on Sunday. I think they've largely abandoned that now.

I think it is bizarre that we spend so much money on bus stations in this country yet starve buses of investment in almost every other way. It seems to be almost a national obsession to enthusiasts and to local councillors an expression of civic pride.

 

[carlberry]

I think it is bizarre that we spend so much money on bus stations in this country yet starve buses of investment in almost every other way. It seems to be almost a national obsession to enthusiasts and to local councillors an expression of civic pride.

Local councillors in Cardiff have shown how much pride they have in buses by removing one of the best located bus stations in the UK, replacing it with nothing and using the space for an office block (with extensive car parking - dispite being 50 yards from the main rail station!).

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Actually I don't think we are that far apart. Long distance coaches definitely should have a coach station. Coach stations exist in most countries. City services don't need them. We agree on both those things. Inter-urban is where we disagree.

I think inter-urban services should go to the rail station. They should still, however, serve stops in the town centre, and they generally do in mainland Europe. If you travel around on buses in mainland Europe you generally get equal numbers getting on at the station and in the city centre if they are a long way apart. They've got the money, they could have built another bus station in the town centre if they thought it was worth it. You do get the odd Bushof in Germany that is not at the rail station, but the buses generally call at the rail station as well in a smaller city. Obviously in a big city you get buses/trams/metros in all directions with many routes not serving the city centre at all. Then you tend to get bus stations at outlying metro stations.

Bus station safety is an issue, certainly in the bigger cities. GMPTE/TfGM have tried various initiatives to make people feel safer in their bus stations. For a number of years they closed off most of their bus stations in the evenings and Sundays so that services only used a few stands. That led to the confusing situation that services would have a different stand in the evenings and on Sunday. I think they've largely abandoned that now.

I think it is bizarre that we spend so much money on bus stations in this country yet starve buses of investment in almost every other way. It seems to be almost a national obsession to enthusiasts and to local councillors an expression of civic pride.

Having experienced the joys of this sceptered isle, I've always paid particular regard to bus stations and their design/suitability. Yes, there's the issue of ne'er do wells potentially being drawn to such facilities - as there is to rail stations. We wouldn't expect a similar approach of providing just a basic structure for a rail station in a major town!

I look at somewhere like Accrington and it makes sense in terms of location (proximity to town centre) and the frequency/headway of services. I'm sure that this is posturing to get the best deal by the operators.

Similarly, it would be good if somewhere like Darlington had a bus station that could accommodate not just coach services, but also the inter-urban services such as to Bishop, Darlington, Middlesbrough, Durham and even places like Hurworth. The land is available..... should the council wish to lose some car parking revenue (which they won't).

I can remember the situation prior to Peterlee bus station. A desolate selection of bus stops, half of which were linked to the town centre via crossing of a busy road or a dingy subway. The current bus station, whilst not perfect, is a quantum leap forward.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Local councillors in Cardiff have shown how much pride they have in buses by removing one of the best located bus stations in the UK, replacing it with nothing and using the space for an office block (with extensive car parking - dispite being 50 yards from the main rail station!).

Indeed - it is so frustrating when such decisions are made or opportunities missed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I also don't understand radamfi's obsession with having a bus station next to a railway station. Most people who are travelling by bus into a town or city are not going somewhere else, they are going to that town or city. This might be for employment or it might be shopping, the cinema, the football, whatever. If the railway station is in the town centre then it perhaps makes sense to integrate the two, but if the railway station is not in the town centre then it doesn't.

Bradford Interchange, as an example, became such an unloved white elephant precisely because people didn't want a 10-minute walk up a steep hill from the shops to their bus.

Most people travelling into Newcastle are going to work or going shopping. Therefore having the two bus stations next to the shopping centre and over the road from the universities makes perfect sense. Making everything cross the city centre to go to the station, which is a good 10-minute walk away from the shops, would be madness.

 

[radamfi]

I also don't understand radamfi's obsession with having a bus station next to a railway station. Most people who are travelling by bus into a town or city are not going somewhere else, they are going to that town or city. This might be for employment or it might be shopping, the cinema, the football, whatever. If the railway station is in the town centre then it perhaps makes sense to integrate the two, but if the railway station is not in the town centre then it doesn't.

In a smaller town or city, it makes sense for buses to serve both the town centre and rail stations. So there's no need to walk from the rail station. As I pointed out earlier, where they do that in mainland Europe, many passengers use both the town centre and rail station stops. In a bigger city, you would normally have trams/trains/metros/buses integrated into a network so chances are people would be approaching the city centre by tram or metro anyway.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

In a smaller town or city, it makes sense for buses to serve both the town centre and rail stations. So there's no need to walk from the rail station. As I pointed out earlier, where they do that in mainland Europe, many passengers use both the town centre and rail station stops. In a bigger city, you would normally have trams/trains/metros/buses integrated into a network so chances are people would be approaching the city centre by tram or metro anyway.

The idea that the location of a bus station is dependant on rail passengers is perverse. It is classic tail wagging the dog and reflects a dogmatic approach in your "modal shift/integration" obsession.

The fact is that in the UK, we often have rail stations in peripheral locations, whether that being because of a) early adoption b) 19th century economics or c) topography

I have no issue with integration where it is logical and straightforward to do. As has been pointed out, Cardiff has a centrally located station and it baffles me as to why we allow a good example of integration be wrecked.

However, go along the coast to Swansea. The idea that the bus station would be located near the rail station is preposterous.

By all means, make it easier and don't lose the good opportunities that exist to promote bus/rail integration. However, don't disadvantage the much larger number of passengers who DON'T wish to travel by train because of some dogma about integration that the vast majority of people don't need.

 

[radamfi]

The idea that the location of a bus station is dependant on rail passengers is perverse. It is classic tail wagging the dog and reflects a dogmatic approach in your "modal shift/integration" obsession.

The fact is that in the UK, we often have rail stations in peripheral locations, whether that being because of a) early adoption b) 19th century economics or c) topography

I have no issue with integration where it is logical and straightforward to do. As has been pointed out, Cardiff has a centrally located station and it baffles me as to why we allow a good example of integration be wrecked.

However, go along the coast to Swansea. The idea that the bus station would be located near the rail station is preposterous.

By all means, make it easier and don't lose the good opportunities that exist to promote bus/rail integration. However, don't disadvantage the much larger number of passengers who DON'T wish to travel by train because of some dogma about integration that the vast majority of people don't need.

I thought we have already established that railway stations can be away from the town centre in other countries? The UK is far from unique in that. The Swiss, for example, are rich and spend vast sums on their local transport, but they still choose not to build elaborate bus stations away from rail stations. They can easily see what's happening in the UK and if they liked what they saw they could easily build a bus station for buses to pass through on the way from the rail station.

The UK is almost alone in not sending their buses to the railway station, as well as the town centre, in a small/medium sized town. It could be that Britain has got it right and everyone else has got it wrong, but is that likely? Does the British example lead to superior patronage? If I had to copy a country, one with low and one with high patronage, which would I choose?

In a big city, things are different and you don't necessarily send all buses to the station. Instead you provide an interconnecting network of services to serve the whole area, not just the city centre. Cardiff (and possibly Swansea) may well fall into that category, so might not actually need all buses going to the station.

I shall also mention for the third time that if you travel by bus in mainland Europe you can see passengers boarding both at the rail station and in the town centre. It is not as if the town centre is not served.

Can it be actually be proved that building a bus palace improves patronage? Even if it does, could patronage be improved more by spending that money on other things?

By the way, when I say "patronage", I mean total patronage for bus/tram/train/metro combined, not just bus on its own.

 

[ivanhoe]

In a smaller town or city, it makes sense for buses to serve both the town centre and rail stations. So there's no need to walk from the rail station. As I pointed out earlier, where they do that in mainland Europe, many passengers use both the town centre and rail station stops. In a bigger city, you would normally have trams/trains/metros/buses integrated into a network so chances are people would be approaching the city centre by tram or metro anyway.

Not in Loughborough mate. The town centre and railway station are at least 15 minutes walk for most people. Mind you, we don't have a bus station anymore!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I thought we have already established that railway stations can be away from the town centre in other countries? The UK is far from unique in that. The Swiss, for example, are rich and spend vast sums on their local transport, but they still choose not to build elaborate bus stations away from rail stations. They can easily see what's happening in the UK and if they liked what they saw they could easily build a bus station for buses to pass through on the way from the rail station.

The UK is almost alone in not sending their buses to the railway station, as well as the town centre, in a small/medium sized town. It could be that Britain has got it right and everyone else has got it wrong, but is that likely? Does the British example lead to superior patronage? If I had to copy a country, one with low and one with high patronage, which would I choose?

In a big city, things are different and you don't necessarily send all buses to the station. Instead you provide an interconnecting network of services to serve the whole area, not just the city centre. Cardiff (and possibly Swansea) may well fall into that category, so might not actually need all buses going to the station.

I shall also mention for the third time that if you travel by bus in mainland Europe you can see passengers boarding both at the rail station and in the town centre. It is not as if the town centre is not served.

Can it be actually be proved that building a bus palace improves patronage? Even if it does, could patronage be improved more by spending that money on other things?

By the way, when I say "patronage", I mean total patronage for bus/tram/train/metro combined, not just bus on its own.

You're right - you're so right. How foolish of me....it's like I've never left this country :roll:

I mean, why wouldn't people want to stand a draughty roadside stop. The fact that people on the continent don't do that is clearly the most logical reason for patronage.... I mean, it wouldn't be the massive amount of transport expenditure per capita?

Can it be proved that a bus station improves patronage? Perhaps going back to a question that I posed earlier that you didn't answer....Why have such similar investment in rail stations (aka a train palace)? Why do DB spend huge amounts on rail stations? Is there any evidence that it promotes ridership?

Or perhaps there is something/a lot that is fundamentally different in the UK? We don't invest in the same measure - we make a big song and dance about investing in cycle infrastructure whereas the Dutch spend 3 to 4 times that as a matter of course. Perhaps we have longer distance bus services with lower headways?

I suggest you go to Swansea and see what I mean. For me, it really is like a foreign country.....

 

[radamfi]

You're right - you're so right. How foolish of me....it's like I've never left this country :roll:

I mean, why wouldn't people want to stand a draughty roadside stop. The fact that people on the continent don't do that is clearly the most logical reason for patronage.... I mean, it wouldn't be the massive amount of transport expenditure per capita?

Can it be proved that a bus station improves patronage? Perhaps going back to a question that I posed earlier that you didn't answer....Why have such similar investment in rail stations (aka a train palace)? Why do DB spend huge amounts on rail stations? Is there any evidence that it promotes ridership?

Or perhaps there is something/a lot that is fundamentally different in the UK? We don't invest in the same measure - we make a big song and dance about investing in cycle infrastructure whereas the Dutch spend 3 to 4 times that as a matter of course. Perhaps we have longer distance bus services with lower headways?

I suggest you go to Swansea and see what I mean. For me, it really is like a foreign country.....

I've been to Swansea a number of times and quite recently so I could check out the bus priority scheme. I know the Quadrant bus station is at completely the other side of town from the rail station.

The main difference with a rail station is that you are likely to be there for some time. Money can be made by selling retail space at rail stations, and they can actually become destinations in their own right. I guess people can arrive at a bus stop/station well before departure but not to the same extent. Personally I go somewhere else to pass the time.

Longer distance buses (as opposed to coaches) do exist in other countries, at a variety of frequencies and route lengths. Despite Switzerland having a very comprehensive rail network, they have of course their world famous yellow Post buses. They go to the rail station.

It may seem counter-intuitive to someone born in Britain that you can get high patronage when not having an elaborate bus station in the town centre, but the evidence points that way. We in Britain think that bus stations are essential because that's what we've become accustomed to. You could say it is part of our operating culture, along with stage based fare systems and paying again when changing buses or between buses and trams. Don't forget I was born and grew up in a place of particularly notable bus station extravagance. I was part of the culture. So for a long time I used to look down on the other parts of the country which didn't have huge bus stations, before I understood how things work elsewhere.

Just because we've always done things that way doesn't mean it is the best way of maximising patronage. Deep down, I realise Britain is not really that interested in increasing patronage, but that fact is still hard to take. We would rather maintain our traditions, even if it means lower patronage.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I've been to Swansea a number of times and quite recently so I could check out the bus priority scheme. I know the Quadrant bus station is at completely the other side of town from the rail station.

The main difference with a rail station is that you are likely to be there for some time. Money can be made by selling retail space at rail stations, and they can actually become destinations in their own right. I guess people can arrive at a bus stop/station well before departure but not to the same extent. Personally I go somewhere else to pass the time.

Longer distance buses (as opposed to coaches) do exist in other countries, at a variety of frequencies and route lengths. Despite Switzerland having a very comprehensive rail network, they have of course their world famous yellow Post buses. They go to the rail station.

It may seem counter-intuitive to someone born in Britain that you can get high patronage when not having an elaborate bus station in the town centre, but the evidence points that way. We in Britain think that bus stations are essential because that's what we've become accustomed to. You could say it is part of our operating culture, along with stage based fare systems and paying again when changing buses or between buses and trams. Don't forget I was born and grew up in a place of particularly notable bus station extravagance. I was part of the culture. So for a long time I used to look down on the other parts of the country which didn't have huge bus stations, before I understood how things work elsewhere.

Just because we've always done things that way doesn't mean it is the best way of maximising patronage. Deep down, I realise Britain is not really that interested in increasing patronage, but that fact is still hard to take. We would rather maintain our traditions, even if it means lower patronage.

You are priceless. Rail stations as destinations in their own right? The fact that passengers are there longer - why would you arrive there earlier than you need (to paraphrase your point on bus stations)?

The fact that patronage is higher in western Europe is not because they don't have decent bus stations. It's a lot more complex than that. In the UK, we have a different model - partly a consequence of history whether that be the ownership of rail companies or the Beeching axe. Bus stations in this country perform a different role. The expenditure on public transport is also a major reason.

Not withstanding that, the fact is that I find it baffling that a train station HAS to have a fantastic edifice and facilities and yet bus passengers should be expected to make do with a collection of bus shelters randomly scattered across various streets.

Your assertion is that the town centre (the single biggest stop) should have bus passengers in the p*ssing rain and wind and no facilities whilst waiting for services with an hourly or half hourly headway but that they'll feel safer there than in a decent bus station is difficult to believe. Not withstanding that aside from the main issues (e.g. reliability of service, speed, cost), the requirement of having somewhere nice to wait ranked 10th in a survey rather than linking with other modes (20th).

As I say, make modal integration easier where possible but don't be dogmatic about it.

 

[radamfi]

As I say, make modal integration easier where possible but don't be dogmatic about it.

So do you think the Swiss etc. are making a mistake in the way they do apparently go overboard on integration? Would they be better off cutting out the more "dogmatic" examples of integration?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So do you think the Swiss etc. are making a mistake in the way they do apparently go overboard on integration? Would they be better off cutting out the more "dogmatic" examples of integration?

No - good on them if they're prepared to spend the money.

However, I ask you again... Do we listen to what people want, or do we give them what we think they should have?

If the latter, then perhaps why bother having passenger surveys?

 

[radamfi]

No - good on them if they're prepared to spend the money.

However, I ask you again... Do we listen to what people want, or do we give them what we think they should have?

If the latter, then perhaps why bother having passenger surveys?

So if Britain had Swiss levels of funding, then you would be willing to go for full Swiss-style integration? That would inevitably lead to direct links that currently exist being broken, which you would call "dogmatic".

The problem with passenger surveys is that they generally only cover people who currently use services and are by definition going to be reasonably satisfied with the service they get, unless they are captive. Surveys which cover non-passengers could be more use. But even if you ask non-users, people in this country have little experience of integrated transport so wouldn't necessarily appreciate the benefits. If you ask a lay person if they would prefer a direct service or one that needed a change, it would be natural to want a direct service. I wouldn't be surprised if similar surveys in Switzerland say that they prefer more direct routes, because they don't realise that what they have actually leads to better patronage.

 

[RT4038]

No - good on them if they're prepared to spend the money.

Quite. In my town (pop. 60 000) the railway station is a 15 min. walk from the town centre. For all the bus services to serve the railway station at their present frequencies, I would estimate at least another 4 vehicles in service. Cost - about £800 000 p.a. Would additional fares be generated to this level? -I doubt it; presumably the bus company thinks so as well and does not wish to take that risk. There are no bus facilities at the railway station, except for a street stop. Would have to take up Car Parking space to create a bus stand. Would the railway want to lose that revenue - No.

I do not see the point of arguing as to whether town centre bus stations are required or not - bus companies invariably do not want to use them because it is cheaper not to. However, if all the services are not going to go to the railway station as a central interchange point (and in the UK they are not), then it is better to have one in the Town Centre for longer distance services than not. It must also be borne in mind that non- bus users do not want buses cluttering up the pavement space

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The problem with passenger surveys is that they generally only cover people who currently use services and are by definition going to be reasonably satisfied with the service they get, unless they are captive. Surveys which cover non-passengers could be more use. But even if you ask non-users, people in this country have little experience of integrated transport so wouldn't necessarily appreciate the benefits. If you ask a lay person if they would prefer a direct service or one that needed a change, it would be natural to want a direct service. I wouldn't be surprised if similar surveys in Switzerland say that they prefer more direct routes, because they don't realise that what they have actually leads to better patronage.

Funnily enough....they did survey non users. What were the main issues....

• Bad driving behaviour and poor driver attitudes
• Concerns about other passengers committing anti-social or criminal behaviour, as well as more general concerns about other people’s behaviour causing annoyance or discomfort
• Fears about the physical condition of buses making them unsafe, unreliable or inaccessible (for participants with mobility problems), as well as concerns about cleanliness and comfort on board
• Concerns about personal safety, comfort and the adequacy of information at bus stops
• The perceived length of bus journeys, as well as the appropriateness of timetables for the journeys participants needed to make
• A belief that buses cannot be relied on to stick to their timetables
• A perceived lack of direct and/or appropriate routes, as well as concerns about routes travelling through ‘undesirable’ areas
• A belief that fares are too high, as well as complaints about the
• inconvenience of having to find exact change.

Of course, I could've laid money on the fact that you'd say that, naturally, any UK survey would be unrepresentative because the idiotic general public are just SO dumb....and can't be relied upon.

I mean, I was waiting for a late running bus yesterday, and the people there were wittering away on such irrelevancies such as service reliability, the poor facilities to wait in, the impact on roadworks in Bath city centre on the buses, and the like. Who'd have thought it, eh?

 

[radamfi]

No - good on them if they're prepared to spend the money.

So if Britain had Swiss levels of funding, then you would be willing to go for full Swiss-style integration?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So if Britain had Swiss levels of funding, then you would be willing to go for full Swiss-style integration?

Why? Is that what people want? Is Switzerland perfect? Is there any likelihood that will happen?

 

[radamfi]

Why? Is that what people want? Is Switzerland perfect? Is there any likelihood that will happen?

Nowhere is perfect but Switzerland has a much higher public transport modal share than the UK. It is highly unlikely to happen, but the largely academic question remains. Maybe British people would not respond to Swiss-style investment and integration, and so such an intervention would not be worthwhile.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Maybe British people would not respond to Swiss-style investment and integration, and so such an intervention would not be worthwhile.

My bus to work goes from the main road at the top of the street to the bus station over the road from my work. What I need from the bus is reliability, punctuality and somewhere nice to wait for my bus home.

I would like the bus to integrate with the Metro- both with ticketing and actually stopping at the Metro station- but the main reason for this is because the traffic in Newcastle is so bad (and the timetable so optimistic) the bus fails on punctuality. If the bus was reliable and punctual I wouldn't need or want to go near the Metro.

Investment in traffic priority measures (or even just fixing the roundabout at South Gosforth) would increase bus use and improve my experience. Integration would be nice, certainly at the moment with the Metro being a good escape route from the traffic snarlups. But really what I want is a bus to get me from home to work, or from home to the shops. I don't need to go near the Metro or the railways in my day-to-day travelling. Most people are the same.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would like the bus to integrate with the Metro- both with ticketing and actually stopping at the Metro station- but the main reason for this is because the traffic in Newcastle is so bad (and the timetable so optimistic) the bus fails on punctuality. If the bus was reliable and punctual I wouldn't need or want to go near the Metro.

Investment in traffic priority measures (or even just fixing the roundabout at South Gosforth) would increase bus use and improve my experience. Integration would be nice, certainly at the moment with the Metro being a good escape route from the traffic snarlups. But really what I want is a bus to get me from home to work, or from home to the shops. I don't need to go near the Metro or the railways in my day-to-day travelling. Most people are the same.

I was talking to a friend who has worked in various parts of the bus industry but is now working for a County Council dealing with (what is left of) the subsidised network. He explained to me that there is no connection between the operational side of the Council and the infrastructure side.

That integration needs resolving long before the lack of modal integration. If bus lanes aren't designed with the operator (or tendering authority, at least, in the case of tendered services) in mind, how do we think they are ever going to work properly?

Milton Keynes's new(ish) bus station outside the railway station (good place for it ) was a fine example of this. The Council designed it to fit the old Solos and Plaxton Beaver breadvans, it having completely escaped their notice that Arriva now mostly use full-size Wright single deckers, not to mention Stagey's 15m coaches on the X5. One side talking to the other? Never. And the result was costly - the centre platform had to be redesigned and rebuilt (yes, they'd near finished it before even thinking about whether a bus might fit round it or not) so the full-size buses could get round the corner.

Astonishing.

 

[radamfi]

Investment in traffic priority measures (or even just fixing the roundabout at South Gosforth) would increase bus use and improve my experience. Integration would be nice, certainly at the moment with the Metro being a good escape route from the traffic snarlups. But really what I want is a bus to get me from home to work, or from home to the shops. I don't need to go near the Metro or the railways in my day-to-day travelling. Most people are the same.

But in the event of Swiss-style investment and integration (which is the hypothetical scenario that we were debating), it is highly likely that there would be a comprehensive tram/metro network in a conurbation the size of Tyne and Wear. I don't think it is possible to go to Zurich city centre from anywhere outside the city without changing onto a bus at an outlying tram stop/S-Bahn station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But in the event of Swiss-style investment and integration (which is the hypothetical scenario that we were debating), it is highly likely that there would be a comprehensive tram/metro network in a conurbation the size of Tyne and Wear.

What, like there is, you mean?

Some German cities, like Hamburg, don't do trams.

 

[radamfi]

Some German cities, like Hamburg, don't do trams.

Their S-Bahn/U-Bahn network is quite comprehensive, though. Presumably most people would go to the city centre by changing onto a train at the nearest station.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

But in the event of Swiss-style investment and integration (which is the hypothetical scenario that we were debating), it is highly likely that there would be a comprehensive tram/metro network in a conurbation the size of Tyne and Wear. I don't think it is possible to go to Zurich city centre from anywhere outside the city without changing onto a bus at an outlying tram stop/S-Bahn station.

hmmm... we've had this debate in other threads...what's good for the goose is NOT neccesarily good for the gander... whilst integration works well in Switzerland it probably won't work so well in the UK. There are a number of reasons for this... for a start in Switzerland it isn't just buses and rail that are integrated... boat services and fernicular railways are included in the system... along with the fact that due to the mountainous geography the quickest way from A-B is using public transport including a boat trip!

secondly... after decades of car v public transport in the UK the car is winning because of one simple reason.... it is seen as the least hassle... you get in the vehicle at the start point and get out of it at the end point... people in the UK are reticent to even walk to/ from the nearest bus stop let alone the hassle of changing modes half way through the journey. This was proved in the 70's/ 80's in Tyne and Wear when the PTE tried to enforce integration.

It can also be seen in towns where operators have cynically chopped cross town routes and have found that usage has gone DOWN rather than UP.

As to modal shift in Switzerland? well I think that is more of a myth than fact. The Swiss are very good at hiding their congestion underground... try using the motorway network under their cities... they are always near to gridlock when I use them...

 

[radamfi]

Milton Keynes's new(ish) bus station outside the railway station (good place for it )

Milton Keynes is an interesting case. They had a traditional "bus palace" near the station, but not right outside. It is quite iconic, like Preston, but in an unusually sensible manner, the bus station has been relocated directly outside the railway station. But many people here would consider that to be a retrograde step, as the new bus station is made up of bus shelters and is not a single enclosed structure. The rail station is also quite a way from the main shopping area, but there is no bus station there. Most if not all routes have at least two stops in the "city centre", as it is very spread out and so any location for the bus station would be far away for some people.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As to modal shift in Switzerland? well I think that is more of a myth than fact. The Swiss are very good at hiding their congestion underground... try using the motorway network under their cities... they are always near to gridlock when I use them...

It is statistical fact that Swiss cities have high public transport usage. See

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transport-Suburbia-Beyond-Automobile-Age/dp/1844077403

However it is true that car use still exists. Whilst the Swiss have more or less sorted internal city transport, long distance transport is still mostly by car, as in all other developed countries, despite having the most heavily used rail network in the world.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What, like there is, you mean?

Some German cities, like Hamburg, don't do trams.

Hamburg is a good case in point, with buses running right into the city centre from the outlying suburbs. They even have the Schnellbusen to make it easier.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Nowhere is perfect but Switzerland has a much higher public transport modal share than the UK. It is highly unlikely to happen, but the largely academic question remains. Maybe British people would not respond to Swiss-style investment and integration, and so such an intervention would not be worthwhile.

It is academic in more ways than one. Firstly, it is something that lecturers and transport academics would like to espouse but god forbid that they ask people what they want. Secondly, ask a hypothetical question - you get a hypothetical answer. I prefer to live in the reality of the situation and deal with that in the best way possible.

The evidence of current passengers and non-passengers and integration is not an issue. Also, something's missing, there are virtually no tram or metro schemes in the pipeline so I'm not seeing where this change is coming from that the hypothesis is built on.

So back to where we ACTUALLY are and where we're likely to stay. Buses will be the main means of serving towns and cities and the centre of these are the single largest traffic objective. FACT. Having a decent place to wait in the town centre need not be a Palace, any more than a rail station is. After all, it is clearly more of a consideration for users and non users.

Milton Keynes is one of the instances I can think of where it does make sense as a) there is a clear, demonstrable flow of passengers. However, if I look at where I travelled today.... Plymouth, Torquay, Exeter, Taunton - all major places with train stations in highly peripheral locations. Two have town centre bus stations for interurban services, typically 15 - 30 min headways but some are wider, and these are close to major shopping streets (though local services actually use the streets). In Plymouth, Bretonside has been largely vacated so bus services get to use one of 20 different roadside stands on Royal Parade. Meanwhile, Torquay is one of those places with p*ss poor facilities and dreadful publicity.