English bus usage continues to fall (in most places)

[Bletchleyite]

Logic, I think not!

Only if you are happy to stick with the idea of buses being cramped cattle wagons which are a distress purchase and never a first choice.

You can fit fancy LED lighting, white destination displays and paint it a fancy colour all you like (though FWIW I find the standard Arriva interior much nicer than the Sapphire 2+2 one), but the fact remains that the prevailing view is that the problem with public transport is the public. So if you cram people in, they have little personal space and will never choose the bus over their car unless there is a stick such as severe traffic congestion bypassed by bus lanes.

 

[Deerfold]

And yet Government still makes it hard to invest in quality urban public transportation, but still allows local authorities to chuck money at nasty busway schemes :roll:

I'm not sure which nasty busway schemes you have in mind, but the Cambridge one has (for all its problems) increased ridership massively. I've had cause recently to use the Bradford one several times recently and found it very good at helping buses avoid peak-time jams.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure which nasty busway schemes you have in mind, but the Cambridge one has (for all its problems) increased ridership massively. I've had cause recently to use the Bradford one several times recently and found it very good at helping buses avoid peak-time jams.

For all I'd rather it'd been a railway, the service provided on the Cambridge busway is far superior to that that would have been provided had it been reopened as a railway branch line which almost certainly would have had an ageing 2-car DMU once an hour, and that's if one could be found. And it very much does still have the feel of a branch line railway in an odd way.

There might be future potential for a conversion to light rail, though.

The case for the Luton one is weaker, I admit, but it still isn't *bad*.

 

[Hophead]

Thanks for that. My point was not that the information was not there somewhere but that you had possibly to make a journey to uncover it depending on what you googled in the first place or clicked on to. After all, I was only seeking the timetable, not real-time info, and the person contemplating bus travel but for whom other options existed might well give up in frustration.

Why not simply use Google itself for journey planning? I did a quick check for a journey in your area and it gave me options (but I've no way of knowing just how accurate the result was, nor the finer points of your itinerary).

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Only if you are happy to stick with the idea of buses being cramped cattle wagons which are a distress purchase and never a first choice.

You can fit fancy LED lighting, white destination displays and paint it a fancy colour all you like (though FWIW I find the standard Arriva interior much nicer than the Sapphire 2+2 one), but the fact remains that the prevailing view is that the problem with public transport is the public. So if you cram people in, they have little personal space and will never choose the bus over their car unless there is a stick such as severe traffic congestion bypassed by bus lanes.

I do appreciate what you say. However, the issue is still economic in many respects and arctic troll is absolutely right in his assertion. In peak, you have services that are full or have a high load factor. You will have a double whammy in that you reduce the capacity by 10-20% whilst the whole point of doing it is to grow the market.

2+1 has limited opportunity. It is largely based around having a service that is currently single decked and has the potential to double deck it and trust that any volume growth outweighs the additional cost. The Transdev 36 is a good example of how that has managed this - once the preserve of Leyland Lynxes and Volvo B10Bs, it could have deckers with 2+1 seating without the massive cost uplift.

However, I think whilst the new Transdev vehicles are stunning (as are the new Trent Red Arrow coaches), the industry misses the point. Survey after survey since time immemorial has identified things like reliability and cost as the biggest issues. Then you have the other issues like information and personal security. The industry needs to get fundamental things like that right before worrying about 2+1 seating

 

[pjnathanail]

I do appreciate what you say. However, the issue is still economic in many respects and arctic troll is absolutely right in his assertion. In peak, you have services that are full or have a high load factor. You will have a double whammy in that you reduce the capacity by 10-20% whilst the whole point of doing it is to grow the market.

2+1 has limited opportunity. It is largely based around having a service that is currently single decked and has the potential to double deck it and trust that any volume growth outweighs the additional cost. The Transdev 36 is a good example of how that has managed this - once the preserve of Leyland Lynxes and Volvo B10Bs, it could have deckers with 2+1 seating without the massive cost uplift.

However, I think whilst the new Transdev vehicles are stunning (as are the new Trent Red Arrow coaches), the industry misses the point. Survey after survey since time immemorial has identified things like reliability and cost as the biggest issues. Then you have the other issues like information and personal security. The industry needs to get fundamental things like that right before worrying about 2+1 seating

This second paragraph is spot on in my opinion. The most important thing to passengers is reliability; they desperately want buses to arrive at the time that they say they will. This means three things are required; bus priority systems (lanes/gates/traffic lights) along entire routes so schedulers can schedule with confidence, spare buses located at strategic points around the network to respond to vehicle faults/cancellations with minimum disruption and finally high frequencies where possible to reduce the impact of any cancellation (as some will inevitably occur). This should also enable journey time reductions which will in turn reduce costs and fares and attract car users.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm really not convinced that cutting fares is in any way a priority. In most cities driving is more expensive already once you have paid for parking, particularly if on a weekly or monthly ticket which by and large are excellent value. Most non bus using drivers I speak to wouldn't use the bus if it was free for various reasons, be they speed, unpunctuality, unreliability or lack of comfort. So forget cutting fares, and if profit increases spend it on quality measures.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'm really not convinced that cutting fares is in any way a priority. In most cities driving is more expensive already once you have paid for parking, particularly if on a weekly or monthly ticket which by and large are excellent value. Most non bus using drivers I speak to wouldn't use the bus if it was free for various reasons, be they speed, unpunctuality, unreliability or lack of comfort. So forget cutting fares, and if profit increases spend it on quality measures.

There is a price elasticity of demand in relation to bus fares. The example of First being a prime example - a policy of hiking fares on a "captive market" has been reversed by improving fare value and, as a consequence, First are now recording like for like patronage increases.

As you say, there are people who will never use bus services for all manner of reasons/excuses. For those who do use buses or would genuinely consider it, reliability is the prime consideration but cost is an important factor. These are the central requirements of Joe Public - "nice to haves" like 2+1 seating or climate control have limited roles and the industry needs to get the base product right before embarking on such added value areas.

 

[ashworth]

There is a price elasticity of demand in relation to bus fares. The example of First being a prime example - a policy of hiking fares on a "captive market" has been reversed by improving fare value and, as a consequence, First are now recording like for like patronage increases.

Many bus operators do exactly the opposite, resulting in bus fares in many rural areas, where they think they have a captive market, being extremely and perhaps unfairly high.

A good example of this is on my local route run by Trent Barton, the 141 which runs a round about route, serving villages between Nottingham and Mansfield. The single fare between Nottingham and Hucknall is £2.30 as it is on their more direct Threes route. However, immediately that the 141 turns off the main road north of Hucknall towards the villages of Linby and Papplewick and leaves the Threes route the fare jumps up to a massive £3.50.
On the 141 route, as soon as the bus leaves Hucknall the fare charged is the same as from Mansfield 7 miles to the north. However, on the Threes route the fares go up gradually between Hucknall and Mansfield making it more expensive to travel from a village on the outskirts of Hucknall than is from most destinations much further north on the main Threes route.

I wrote to Trent Barton asking if this was a mistake and got the reply that the 141 was not a very profitable route for them to run commercially and if the hourly daytime service is to be maintained fares have to be high. From my observations, due to this high price, there are actually very few fare paying passengers who use this route from these villages and so Trent Barton are actually getting most of their income from concessions. I certainly always walk the half mile or so to the main road to get the cheaper Hucknall fare as do many others. It is also far cheaper to walk the mile or drive to Hucknall Station and travel into Nottingham on the train or tram. It is cheaper for a Day Return on the train from Hucknall to Nottingham than it is for a single on the 141 bus from a mile (20 minute walk) north of the station!

So to return to the original title of this thread English bus usage continues to fall (in most places), in my case this is why I don't use my local village bus service.
Extortionate prices from Trent Barton in comparison with their other more profitable routes less than a miles walk away and also the fact that they have cut all evening and Sunday services over the years. However, the latter is not all Trent Barton's fault but as a result of cuts in County Council subsidies.

 

[SCH117X]

However, I think whilst the new Transdev vehicles are stunning (as are the new Trent Red Arrow coaches), the industry misses the point. Survey after survey since time immemorial has identified things like reliability and cost as the biggest issues. Then you have the other issues like information and personal security. The industry needs to get fundamental things like that right before worrying about 2+1 seating

Reliability is obviously often outside the operators control; a example arose this week with Transdevs 36 (along with other services) being thrown into chaos due an accident causing a road closure, the next day they offered to refund fares. Explaining why a service is suddenly unreliable should be easy given social media, more so than the pa at Birmingham New Street which many years ago announced a Euston train would not be calling at the station as it has gone done the Trent Valley, adding this was not British Rails fault with no further explanation being forthcoming (turned out to be due to a accident on the motorway bridge over the Stafford-Wolverhampton line).

 

[yorksrob]

I'm really not convinced that cutting fares is in any way a priority. In most cities driving is more expensive already once you have paid for parking, particularly if on a weekly or monthly ticket which by and large are excellent value. Most non bus using drivers I speak to wouldn't use the bus if it was free for various reasons, be they speed, unpunctuality, unreliability or lack of comfort. So forget cutting fares, and if profit increases spend it on quality measures.

Is it really realistic to consider bus pricing from the point of view of motorists? Surely they're not the key market in the first place.

 

[radamfi]

Is it really realistic to consider bus pricing from the point of view of motorists? Surely they're not the key market in the first place.

The main reason of providing public transport should be to reduce the number of cars on the road. Not just to provide transport to those without cars.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The main reason of providing public transport should be to reduce the number of cars on the road. Not just to provide transport to those without cars.

A laudable objective - and before we get distracted by 2+1 seating and climate control, get the fundamentals sorted as shown in many a survey over time.

 

[yorksrob]

The main reason of providing public transport should be to reduce the number of cars on the road. Not just to provide transport to those without cars.

With respect, that's drivel.

Unless you believe that those without access to a car have no contribution to the economy, public transport exists primarily for those who need to get somewhere to perform an economic activity, regardless of whether they own a motor vehicle or not.

 

[radamfi]

Unless you believe that those without access to a car have no contribution to the economy, public transport exists primarily for those who need to get somewhere to perform an economic activity, regardless of whether they own a motor vehicle or not.

But excessive car travel causes congestion, and also harmful emissions in most cases, so if those vehicles can be removed from the road then that's surely a good thing? That is why so much effort has been made to make public transport more attractive in many European countries, and even in the UK to an extent.

 

[edwin_m]

But excessive car travel causes congestion, and also harmful emissions in most cases, so if those vehicles can be removed from the road then that's surely a good thing? That is why so much effort has been made to make public transport more attractive in many European countries, and even in the UK to an extent.

Both getting cars off the road and providing a transport service for those that don't have cars are laudable objectives, sometimes compatible but often conflicting. Hence why our services tend to be either high-quality frequent and fairly direct routes to attract the car user, or basic offerings designed to provide that safety net at minimum cost. This broadly, but not exactly, replicates the split between commercial and subsidised services.

In other countries where they do these things better, in my view the integration of bus and rail networks makes this split unnecessary. A comprehensive network of rail feeder buses means those with cars are faced with only a short bus journey to the station, or can choose to drive that short distance instead. Those without cars only have the first option, but it is a much better quality offering than would be the case for a "safety net" service in the UK.

 

[radamfi]

If we look at the cities around Europe which enjoy particularly a high modal split for non-car modes, I suspect we would see a transport system that caters well for both car and non-car owners. It would be interesting to see a counterexample.

Although I can certainly see the unattractiveness of many subsidised services. The ones which are very wiggly, trying to serve many places in one route. Most people, whether they are car owners or not, would avoid these if they can because they take so long.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Many bus operators do exactly the opposite, resulting in bus fares in many rural areas, where they think they have a captive market, being extremely and perhaps unfairly high.....I wrote to Trent Barton asking if this was a mistake and got the reply that the 141 was not a very profitable route for them to run commercially and if the hourly daytime service is to be maintained fares have to be high. From my observations, due to this high price, there are actually very few fare paying passengers who use this route from these villages and so Trent Barton are actually getting most of their income from concessions.

So to return to the original title of this thread English bus usage continues to fall (in most places), in my case this is why I don't use my local village bus service.
Extortionate prices from Trent Barton in comparison with their other more profitable routes less than a miles walk away and also the fact that they have cut all evening and Sunday services over the years. However, the latter is not all Trent Barton's fault but as a result of cuts in County Council subsidies.

you answer your own question as to why the fares are so high... low fare paying patronage... so on the basis of fare payers the service is unprofitable... TB then have 2 options... 1. withdraw the route and hope to win the tender (and in these days of council cuts it would be highly unlikely that the new route would be hourly... it would be nothing more than a lifeline service)

or 2. make the route profitable from ENTS re-imbursement... as has been well documented the ENTS is woefully and totally inadequately funded either by central or local government...that means that as the re-imbursement is based on a percentage of the average fare on the route then TB has only one option.. make what fare payers there are pay through the nose. Until the ENTS is totally overhauled and properly funded I'm sorry to say that even good operators like TB will be forced into this situation in an effort to provide a good level of service... My suggestion would be to bite the bullet and pay the extra for the convenience of not walking a mile to the next nearest route..

if you and all the other people avoiding the service were to use it then it would be more profitable, less dependant on ENTS re-imbursement and over time the fares would equalise to the same levels as other, better used services!

 

[radamfi]

My suggestion would be to bite the bullet and pay the extra for the convenience of not walking a mile to the next nearest route..

if you and all the other people avoiding the service were to use it then it would be more profitable, less dependant on ENTS re-imbursement and over time the fares would equalise to the same levels as other, better used services!

But that's paying the ransom. How about a complete boycott so that services are deregistered? If this was done across the network, they could then be replaced by tendered routes with gross cost tendering, so that the issue of pass reimbursement is no longer a problem. Deregulation is incompatible with free passes as the reimbursement rate is always disputed.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But that's paying the ransom. How about a complete boycott so that services are deregistered? If this was done across the network, they could then be replaced by tendered routes with gross cost tendering, so that the issue of pass reimbursement is no longer a problem. Deregulation is incompatible with free passes as the reimbursement rate is always disputed.

Have you been typing and drinking again? :roll: Ransoms, boycotts...... really?

 

[radamfi]

Why should I pay so called "commercial fares" just to prop up the system on principle? I could understand if I'm getting something special, like a dedicated busway and high specification buses but usually I don't. I prefer to save my money and use it on bus trips abroad where I get better value.

 

[yorksrob]

But excessive car travel causes congestion, and also harmful emissions in most cases, so if those vehicles can be removed from the road then that's surely a good thing? That is why so much effort has been made to make public transport more attractive in many European countries, and even in the UK to an extent.

It is a good thing, but that's only part of the reason for public transport. The primary value in public transport is in allowing those without motor transport to engage in the economic life of the country. It's why public transport is needed in places where there isn't very much road congestion as well as those where there is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why should I pay so called "commercial fares" just to prop up the system on principle? I could understand if I'm getting something special, like a dedicated busway and high specification buses but usually I don't. I prefer to save my money and use it on bus trips abroad where I get better value.

Yes indeed. De-regulation doesn't benefit anyone. All it does is to allow private companies to cream off the best routes and force the taxpayer to pick up the tab for the rest. It's about time it was buried once and for all.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is a good thing, but that's only part of the reason for public transport. The primary value in public transport is in allowing those without motor transport to engage in the economic life of the country. It's why public transport is needed in places where there isn't very much road congestion as well as those where there is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yes indeed. De-regulation doesn't benefit anyone. All it does is to allow private companies to cream off the best routes and force the taxpayer to pick up the tab for the rest. It's about time it was buried once and for all.

Hmmm... Let's not forget what life was like in a regulated environment. Passenger figures were heading through the floor at a vast rate of knots despite a shed load of subsidy (hidden and overt). What we ended up with was a cross-subsidised mess where "good" services were penalised by having less investment and lower subsidies in order to prop up a hinterland of unsustainable services.

 

[yorksrob]

Hmmm... Let's not forget what life was like in a regulated environment. Passenger figures were heading through the floor at a vast rate of knots despite a shed load of subsidy (hidden and overt). What we ended up with was a cross-subsidised mess where "good" services were penalised by having less investment and lower subsidies in order to prop up a hinterland of unsustainable services.

It is funny that where transport is regulated, i.e. the railway, buses in London etc, passenger usage is going up, yet in the unregulated free for all, bus usage is still plummeting.

Cross-subsidy is the only sensible way to run a transport network. I don't see why taxpayers should have to pay to run socially necessary services when the private sector can waltz in and cream off any profitable routes it chooses.

 

[edwin_m]

Hmmm... Let's not forget what life was like in a regulated environment. Passenger figures were heading through the floor at a vast rate of knots despite a shed load of subsidy (hidden and overt). What we ended up with was a cross-subsidised mess where "good" services were penalised by having less investment and lower subsidies in order to prop up a hinterland of unsustainable services.

And we now have a deregulated network where passenger numbers continue to fall and there is still a shed load of subsidy in the form of BSOG, concessionary reimbursement, and councils picking up the tab for stops and highway facilities. Meanwhile the big operators make much better margins in the deregulated system than they do in London or would if regulation was imposed elsewhere. They all oppose re-regulation, but then again they would say that wouldn't they?

What was missing then and is still missing now is any significant degree of integration either between buses or with other public transport. We are still making the mistake of thinking of the bus service as a series of routes rather than a network.

 

[radamfi]

It is a good thing, but that's only part of the reason for public transport. The primary value in public transport is in allowing those without motor transport to engage in the economic life of the country. It's why public transport is needed in places where there isn't very much road congestion as well as those where there is.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that people without their own transport should be ignored. If you look at the Netherlands for example, you could argue there is almost no need for buses given that almost everyone cycles or has a car (usually both). But the service is very good. There are a lot of segregated busways, lots of signal priority, buses are modern and high specification, there is usually service in the evening and Sunday and fares are reasonable. Given that most people cycle instead of getting the bus, it would not be possible to run a fully commercial bus service, but comprehensive services are still provided, because it is considered important.

Hmmm... Let's not forget what life was like in a regulated environment. Passenger figures were heading through the floor at a vast rate of knots despite a shed load of subsidy (hidden and overt). What we ended up with was a cross-subsidised mess where "good" services were penalised by having less investment and lower subsidies in order to prop up a hinterland of unsustainable services.

But that was when buses were still state owned and there was no competitive tendering. A regulated British bus service would almost certainly be private run. Although a lot of places with world class service are still fully state-owned.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is funny that where transport is regulated, i.e. the railway, buses in London etc, passenger usage is going up, yet in the unregulated free for all, bus usage is still plummeting.

Cross-subsidy is the only sensible way to run a transport network. I don't see why taxpayers should have to pay to run socially necessary services when the private sector can waltz in and cream off any profitable routes it chooses.

Cross subsidy is a ridiculous way to operate. It means that good services get plundered to prop up a hinterland of dross - clearly you don't know much about Midland Red?

Could it be that bus usage in London is climbing because of the huge subsidy that it gets vs the rest of the country?

And that bus usage in the provinces was actually increasing or steady until the raft of austerity cuts that have come along. If you think there's no correlation between public expenditure and public transport usage....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And we now have a deregulated network where passenger numbers continue to fall and there is still a shed load of subsidy in the form of BSOG, concessionary reimbursement, and councils picking up the tab for stops and highway facilities. Meanwhile the big operators make much better margins in the deregulated system than they do in London or would if regulation was imposed elsewhere. They all oppose re-regulation, but then again they would say that wouldn't they?

What was missing then and is still missing now is any significant degree of integration either between buses or with other public transport. We are still making the mistake of thinking of the bus service as a series of routes rather than a network.

There is nowhere near the level of subsidy now than there was in regulated times. That was one of the main aims of deregulation and privatisation. Not only was there fuel duty rebate (was BSOG) but there was a mass of local council subsidy, new bus grants, exchequor aid etc.

ENCTS is NOT a subsidy. It is reimbursement for a service that has been provided for an individual.

Put bluntly, bus usage is dependant on carrots and sticks. Successive governments have pandered to the car lobby (scrappage scheme?) and have increasingly sought to reduce spending over recent years.

If you think that the general public is up for more public spending on public transport, then I'm sorry but you must've missed the last election result...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it really realistic to consider bus pricing from the point of view of motorists? Surely they're not the key market in the first place.

How will the industry grow if it doesn't go after the market of far and away the most popular mode of transport in the UK, the car?

Short sighted petty spats with other operators gain nothing when there is that huge market out there waiting to be tapped. Get even 5% of it and your growth is huge.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cross subsidy is a ridiculous way to operate. It means that good services get plundered to prop up a hinterland of dross - clearly you don't know much about Midland Red?

That Midland Red might have done it badly does not invalidate the concept. Cross subsidy effectively allows some social levelling between busy and less busy routes, which as someone else said provides a level of social inclusivity without so much subsidy.

The concept is basically how the railway works, too, by way of franchise premia.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There is also the benefit of cross subsidy of journeys. It might be that your 7pm service from big city to country is near enough empty because most people finish work in time for the 6pm. But the existence of that 7pm service might make it feasible for some occasional late workers to use that service - without it they might have to drive in case they have to work late.

That, FWIW, is where the German Anruf Sammel Taxi comes in - that way, a lightly used journey runs only when someone actually wants it.

 

[ashworth]

Until the ENTS is totally overhauled and properly funded I'm sorry to say that even good operators like TB will be forced into this situation in an effort to provide a good level of service... My suggestion would be to bite the bullet and pay the extra for the convenience of not walking a mile to the next nearest route..

if you and all the other people avoiding the service were to use it then it would be more profitable, less dependant on ENTS re-imbursement and over time the fares would equalise to the same levels as other, better used services!

Trent Barton may be considered to be a good operator, and I agree that they do run the 141 service well with friendly and helpful drivers, but I am not paying £3.50 for a single to Nottingham when with a 20 minute walk to Hucknall Station it is only £3.40 return on the train. Even when using a TB Zigzag ticket it works out at £6 return or £5 using the Mango card. However, those reduced fares are often no use when there are no buses to return on if you want to come back later in the evening. If the bus fare on the 141 from Linby and Papplewick villages was sensibly higher to help subsidise the service I would be willing to pay and use the service. However, charging the same price as from Mansfield,and double the fare on the Threes route just half a mile away, is just taking advantage of what they think is a captive market.

I know that I, and many others have not supported the route for many years but I don't think that using it will result in TB reducing the fares. Ever since Trent took over the old Midland General company over 30 years ago fares on the route have rocketed up out of proportion to services that have always been Trent routes. This has happened on many routes that Trent took over from Midland General. I believe the same thing happened on many of the rural routes that were operated by Barton. When Trent took over the routes were either cut or fares raised out of all proportion to their own traditional routes. How many of the old Midland General and Barton routes are still in existence in Nottinghamshire.

 

[radamfi]

Cross-subsidy is rather meaningless if you look at networks as a whole, which we should be if we want high patronage. For example, you may have many lightly used services connecting into a trunk bus/tram/train route. The feeder routes wouldn't be profitable in their own right, but there may be a lot of people on the trunk route. However, without the feeder routes, the trunk route may not be as busy.