Europe looks ahead...

[duesselmartin]

Again, to an outside UK view this view seems crazy. @Austriantrain Are you familiar with the concept of "single company tickets"? This would be like having a ticket for *some* trams serving Vienna city centre, but not all. You would have to pay extra for a ticket that includes all the trams.



@Austriantrain @biko @duesselmartin Can you give examples in your countries of bus services from outside the city that stop at the edge of the city with passengers wanting the city centre needing to transfer to a metro/tram? Is this a good thing, or should the bus routes continue to the city centre like in Britain?

local services usually continue into the city, there are some exceptions such as passengers from Heiligenhaus (Northrhine-Westphalia) changing into a train at Hösel for both Essen and Düsseldorf. This makes sense as you dont need two bus routes that way.
On long distance coaches (usually Flixbus) you may find that it serves out of the way places but again its the odd one out. Leverkusen for Cologne is such an example.
For the most parts, buses run into the centre or near the centre.
Martin

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I worked in businesses and I will tell you that those two priorities make people do different things and yes you have to keep costs controlled but if you are maximizing profit then it is OK to increase costs if it increases revenue more. And competition will also make the company's interests and the passenger's interests diverge.

And working in industry, as you have, you will know that for lower margin industries (of which transport is one) then it is much easier to take out £100k of cost to affect the bottom line than to generate the revenue to produce £100k of profit.

The poster indicated that there was a cost saving to be had in making passengers change and rationalising the number of vehicles operating on a corridor. Therefore, there's a reason why operators don't go for the obvious cost savings and that's because it will prove to be unattractive.

If there's a time advantage, or not a disadvantage, then integration has been shown to work but if it's just a faff and an extra 5-10 mins, it won't be attractive.

 

[RT4038]

I worked in businesses and I will tell you that those two priorities make people do different things and yes you have to keep costs controlled but if you are maximizing profit then it is OK to increase costs if it increases revenue more. And competition will also make the company's interests and the passenger's interests diverge.

And no competition (or no threat of competition) will as likely make the Transport Authority's interests and the passenger's interests diverge just as much, if not more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know you have Arriva and I think you know my views on them. Most other major bus firms are ok, some could do better, some are doing better (or were until March 2020) but bus priority needs to happen now and it could. They manage in European countries so much better than us.

And have done for years. I still maintain that the best thing the Government could do for it would be to allow tram signals to be used for buses, as they are all over Europe, which means you don't need an island for an overtake...the outcome of which is that you can have one at every single set of traffic lights. They are the single most effective bus priority measure when coupled with induction loops in the bus lane approaching the lights - they enable what needs to happen which is that "the bus only stops when it wants to".

The other thing that is needed is dedicated cycle infrastructure on the Dutch model. OK, this takes away some bus custom by making cycling more pleasant (though I would say that's no bad thing on the principle that the hierarchy of "benefit" goes roughly walk > bike > ebike/escooter > electric public transport > diesel public transport > motorcycle > car/taxi) but it also separates buses and bikes which are really incompatible, as the former need to go at a reasonable speed with stops, but the latter go at a constant low speed, and the consequence of merging them is that they all go at a low speed with stops, which doesn't help either.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And have done for years. I still maintain that the best thing the Government could do for it would be to allow tram signals to be used for buses, as they are all over Europe, which means you don't need an island for an overtake...the outcome of which is that you can have one at every single set of traffic lights. They are the single most effective bus priority measure when coupled with induction loops in the bus lane approaching the lights - they enable what needs to happen which is that "the bus only stops when it wants to".

The other thing that is needed is dedicated cycle infrastructure on the Dutch model. OK, this takes away some bus custom by making cycling more pleasant (though I would say that's no bad thing on the principle that the hierarchy of "benefit" goes roughly walk > bike > ebike/escooter > electric public transport > diesel public transport > motorcycle > car/taxi) but it also separates buses and bikes which are really incompatible, as the former need to go at a reasonable speed with stops, but the latter go at a constant low speed, and the consequence of merging them is that they all go at a low speed with stops, which doesn't help either.

You're pushing at an open door with both of those, especially as I'm a keen cyclist.

Cycle infrastructure is spectacularly poor, not just in comparison to the Netherlands, but many other countries. I welcome things like cycle hubs at stations but just getting there is bad enough.

Really, nothing would make me happier than improving the quality of life by reducing car usage and having better transport options. I really could post loads of examples where we don't even get the basics right. A couple of ones local to me that @carlberry may recognise. Top one (Bristol) where the bus lane is just tantalisingly out of reach (by the crane) and some wonderful cycle provision by parked cars!

The bottom one is looking out of Bath and in the distance behind the trees is a park and ride site. So we allow people to park on the road when they could (and some do) have driveways and we provide a modern park and ride and then have buses pull out to no bus priority.... and we worry about integrated ticketing!

 

[biko]

And no competition (or no threat of competition) will as likely make the Transport Authority's interests and the passenger's interests diverge just as much, if not more.

Not sure about that. Where I live, routes are tendered once in a few years and scored on various criteria (number of hours that a bus is in service per day, connections, travel time etc). These criteria are set by the regional government and passenger groups have influence on it. Besides that, the regional ‘parliament’ has some say in it and passengers are thus also have some say through councillors.

The other thing that is needed is dedicated cycle infrastructure on the Dutch model. OK, this takes away some bus custom by making cycling more pleasant (though I would say that's no bad thing on the principle that the hierarchy of "benefit" goes roughly walk > bike > ebike/escooter > electric public transport > diesel public transport > motorcycle > car/taxi) but it also separates buses and bikes which are really incompatible, as the former need to go at a reasonable speed with stops, but the latter go at a constant low speed, and the consequence of merging them is that they all go at a low speed with stops, which doesn't help either

I fully agree. As a Dutch person visiting the UK, I was quite surprised to see that something like a combined bus / cycle lane even exists. It is a dangerous thing making cycling very unpleasant and you only see it in places where they want to consider cyclists to tick a box but don’t want to spend any money.

 

[ashkeba]

I fully agree. As a Dutch person visiting the UK, I was quite surprised to see that something like a combined bus / cycle lane even exists. It is a dangerous thing making cycling very unpleasant and you only see it in places where they want to consider cyclists to tick a box but don’t want to spend any money.

I have been told that it is because they want to spend money. Cycling money. Spend it on bus lanes, ideally that are only active for two hours a day, so that drivers can use the space built by cycling and bus money most of the time.

 

[XAM2175]

One thing very visible about London (admittedly flat fare) is how much the move to Oyster/contactless sped things up. Even if you change nothing at all about the fare structure this is of huge benefit to everyone - operator and user - surely a "win-win", which are rare in business!

It was the same in Melbourne with the changeover from Metcard to Myki in 2010. Simply moving from "buy a two-hour Metcard from the driver with cash" to "tap the reloadable smartcard against the validator" slashed enormous amounts of time from stops.

 

[JamesT]

I have been told that it is because they want to spend money. Cycling money. Spend it on bus lanes, ideally that are only active for two hours a day, so that drivers can use the space built by cycling and bus money most of the time.

Oh yes. If you want a good example of that, have a look at The Plain roundabout in Oxford. This was rebuilt a few years ago, mostly with money from the “Cycle City Ambition Fund”. If you can work out what features aid cycling, you’re doing better than me. I’ve even seen a suggestion that the accident statistics for cycling are now worse than before!

 

[daodao]

@Bletchleyite & @johncrossley

One of the problems with changing [modes] in the UK is reliability and frequency of connecting services. Frequency to/from transport hubs is undermined by the hollowing out of the centres of most town centres in the UK resulting from the move to "out-of-town" retail parks and "on line" shopping/banking/business. In addition, land use policy in the UK is not supportive of high density development or siting of key facilities such as hospitals close to existing public transport services/hubs.

As an example, I shall cite my local town of Altrincham, where there has always been good integration between road and rail, with the bus station situated next to the railway station. The local bus services to outlying districts now generally operate hourly compared to every 20 minutes in the 1960s (see the North West Road Car Company timetable on the Timetable World website for details of services 40/41, 99/99A and 101). The town centre has lost many banks and major retail outlets over the last 5 years. While Metrolink thrives, bus use is still declining. For example the remaining direct Altrincham-Stockport bus route 11A frequency was recently reduced to hourly (there were 4 buses per hour on routes 71/80 in the 1960s).

It is reasonable to promote and encourage integration where convenient to do so, but changing of transport modes should not be forced on users, as this will discourage public transport use, particularly where reliability/frequency is poor, as is typically the case in the UK. It should be up to the bus and rail companies what commercial services they run; they should not be directed by the dictatorship of a government-run franchise system. Local government's role should be merely to subsidise some essential public transport services to key localities where commercial operations are not viable.

 

[johncrossley]

It is reasonable to promote and encourage integration where convenient to do so, but changing of transport modes should not be forced on users, as this will discourage public transport use.

Is that the case in the places where such forced interchange is currently used?

@biko @DanielB @Austriantrain @duesselmartin @JonasB Is that the experience in your own countries?

Local government's role should be merely to subsidise some essential public transport services to key localities where commercial operations are not viable.

Is public transport still commercially in the UK? Rail has not been commercial for decades. When was the last time public transport was commercially viable in other European countries?

 

[DanielB]

Is that the case in the places where such forced interchange is currently used?

@biko @DanielB @Austriantrain @duesselmartin @JonasB Is that the experience in your own countries?

In the Netherlands the effects of forced interchanges differ. They tend to be quite succesfull in multimodal franchises, where buses and trains are operated by the same company, thus preventing the need for multiple (season) tickets.

An example is Gorinchem which used to have direct buses to Rotterdam which were relatively slow and infrequent, largely parallel to a railway line that was hardly viable (and didn't have any interchanges with the regional buses). The bus network and railway were tendered together and taken over by Arriva in 2007. This led to an optimization in the network with the bus service being shortened to Sliedrecht - Rotterdam and several upgrades to the railway such as the construction of Sliedrecht Baanhoek station, which became a bus - train interchange slashing journey times: journey time by bus from Gorinchem to Sliedrecht was 55 minutes, by train the same trip only takes 15 minutes.
Looking at that route today (being tendered again in the mean time, this time Qbuzz won) the frequencies of both buses and trains have doubled to every 15 minutes and early 2020 there have been severe problems with trains being that full they couldn't take all passengers wanting to travel on them. So I'd consider that a quite succesfull forced interchange.

However there's often much more resistance to shortening buses that run parallel to NS-operated railway lines as changing to the train then results in significant additional costs. Although it still doesn't really discourage using public transport, which might have to do with the relatively high frequencies in the Netherlands and bus timetables being adapted to the train times. So usually there are no lenghty waits and since the OV-chipkaart was introduced there is no longer a need to queue for a ticket machine when changing for the train, thus interchanges are quicker.

 

[RT4038]

Not sure about that. Where I live, routes are tendered once in a few years and scored on various criteria (number of hours that a bus is in service per day, connections, travel time etc). These criteria are set by the regional government and passenger groups have influence on it. Besides that, the regional ‘parliament’ has some say in it and passengers are thus also have some say through councillors.

This may well be the system that operates in the Netherlands. However, I am far from convinced that, in the context of our culture and politics, this would work particularly well for passengers in many areas of the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the problems with changing [modes] in the UK is reliability and frequency of connecting services. Frequency to/from transport hubs is undermined by the hollowing out of the centres of most town centres in the UK resulting from the move to "out-of-town" retail parks and "on line" shopping/banking/business. In addition, land use policy in the UK is not supportive of high density development or siting of key facilities such as hospitals close to existing public transport services/hubs.

Agreed, certainly those things need to shift (except where, like e.g. the Trafford Centre, those "out of town centres" are big enough to demand the public transport system to shift towards them being a new town centre and public transport hub).

As an example, I shall cite my local town of Altrincham, where there has always been good integration between road and rail, with the bus station situated next to the railway station. The local bus services to outlying districts now generally operate hourly compared to every 20 minutes in the 1960s (see the North West Road Car Company timetable on the Timetable World website for details of services 40/41, 99/99A and 101). The town centre has lost many banks and major retail outlets over the last 5 years. While Metrolink thrives, bus use is still declining. For example the remaining direct Altrincham-Stockport bus route 11A frequency was recently reduced to hourly (there were 4 buses per hour on routes 71/80 in the 1960s).

It is reasonable to promote and encourage integration where convenient to do so, but changing of transport modes should not be forced on users, as this will discourage public transport use, particularly where reliability/frequency is poor, as is typically the case in the UK.

I think the term "forced interchange" is somewhat overused. The Gateshead example was plain silly, and seriously discredited the concept of public transport integration. But at present we aren't just not forcing interchange, we are actively penalising it by making it more expensive and by having a single-mode concessionary scheme for pensioners. And that, too, is wrong.

It should be up to the bus and rail companies what commercial services they run; they should not be directed by the dictatorship of a government-run franchise system. Local government's role should be merely to subsidise some essential public transport services to key localities where commercial operations are not viable.

As you're well aware I don't agree. But in actual fact, things are made worse by us operating in a semi-regulated situation. In urban public transport, people are generally best served by monopolies that concentrate on competing with the car, not by transport operators competing with one another. As such, the present structure of the system in the UK actively prevents co-operation which might allow new combined services with through fares to crop up naturally provided by commercial business. I've said before, and it remains my view, that if we won't fully regulate, what we should actually do is further deregulate, and remove all applicability of competition law to the operation of public transport services. As such, bus operators could get together to offer through ticketing, First could just operate bus services to connect with their train services and stick it all through the same pot and so on.

(As a slight aside to this thread, an example of this is Scottish Citylink - Stagecoach's stake was flogged so as to avoid competition law issues with the Stagecoach-NatEx merger - but if competition law wasn't applicable I'm sure they'd have kept it and thus through ticketing between England and Scotland would have been much better. Or similarly, if NatEx hadn't had to flog it in the first place when they took on ScotRail, they could have used it to develop a decent integrated coach and train network in Scotland with a single ticketing system - all these positive things that have been knackered by a legal constraint that basically exists to stop Tesco putting Bob's Corner Shop out of business, and doesn't even do that very well!)

It is very often the case that partial regulation produces unintended negative consequences, and the way it actually actively discourages public transport connectivity is one of the finest examples. It's evident in most smaller towns (which typically have only one incumbent operator) that bus companies don't take the mick on fares just because there's not another competing bus service (because cars and taxis provide the cap on what it's viable to charge), so why do we persist in this?

In the Netherlands the effects of forced interchanges differ. They tend to be quite succesfull in multimodal franchises, where buses and trains are operated by the same company, thus preventing the need for multiple (season) tickets.

I have always found it odd that in NL you have (or had) a fully integrated system except NS. I assume there's some sort of political reason why they never joined the Strippenkaart system?

 

[DanielB]

I have always found it odd that in NL you have (or had) a fully integrated system except NS. I assume there's some sort of political reason why they never joined the Strippenkaart system?

Probably it had to do with ownership: NS has always been a private company (and thus determined their own fares). The bus companies in contrast were just separated from NS (who owned several of them) two years prior to introduction of the strippenkaart. After that separation the shares of the different companies were put in a holding company which was state-owned. And in return for covering for the losses of the bus operators, the government wanted influence on the fares.
That's also where we inherit the current integrated system from: that simply was the dictated fare system from the government who owned most of the bus companies in the past.

And things have definitely changed since the privatisation as of 2000: the strippenkaart and later the OV-chipkaart continued to exist as country-wide integrated fare. But nowadays almost all season tickets (or discount passes) you can buy are regional products. Some of them are stricktly limited to one company only, but others are still integrated in some way and valid within an entire province or multiple provinces.

The situation never has been completely black and white by the way: there have been areas where the strippenkaart was also valid on trains. But that ended when the OV-chipkaart was introduced.

 

[biko]

This may well be the system that operates in the Netherlands. However, I am far from convinced that, in the context of our culture and politics, this would work particularly well for passengers in many areas of the UK.

Indeed it is a Dutch case, but that shows that regulating buses doesn't automatically lead to a divergence of passengers' interests from the operators' interest. Dutch culture isn't that different from UK culture and I don't see any specific reasons why such a system wouldn't work in the UK.

 

[daodao]

Indeed it is a Dutch case, but that shows that regulating buses doesn't automatically lead to a divergence of passengers' interests from the operators' interest. Dutch culture isn't that different from UK culture and I don't see any specific reasons why such a system wouldn't work in the UK.

Holland is compact, has a higher population density in most localities than the UK, and along with most other European countries, cities/towns are much more compact. This facilitates high frequency. Outside London, the sort of integration and forced interchanges advocated by the likes of @johncrossley (who is London-based) is unrealistic. It won't work in semi-rural East Cheshire (where no bus or rail service has a frequency exceeding every 30 minutes) nor in my view in (most of) the Greater Manchester conurbation.

 

[johncrossley]

Holland is compact, has a higher population density in most localities than the UK, and along with most other European countries, cities/towns are much more compact. This facilitates high frequency. Outside London, the sort of integration and forced interchanges advocated by the likes of @johncrossley (who is London-based) is unrealistic. It won't work in semi-rural East Cheshire (where no bus or rail service has a frequency exceeding every 30 minutes) nor in my view in (most of) the Greater Manchester conurbation.

Eh? We've already been shown integration working successfully in a very rural area of the Netherlands. England has one of the highest population densities in Europe. Greater Manchester is more populous than any conurbation in the Netherlands. British towns are far more similar to European ones than American cities where even poor people live in detached houses. Greater Manchester is full of terraced and semi-detached housing, not unlike the Netherlands. It is hardly like Detroit. But even if it was, the United States has more public transport integration than the UK. American cities often have free or cheap transfers between buses and between buses and subways. Detroit for example has a 4 hour ticket for $2 which gives unlimited transfers between buses and trams.

 

[daodao]

Eh? We've already been shown integration working successfully in a very rural area of the Netherlands. England has one of the highest population densities in Europe. Greater Manchester is more populous than any conurbation in the Netherlands. British towns are far more similar to European ones than American cities where even poor people live in detached houses. Greater Manchester is full of terraced and semi-detached housing, not unlike the Netherlands. It is hardly like Detroit.

Most of Greater Manchester is not like London (or continental cities) in terms of population density. Most people in suburban areas live in detached or semi-detached housing, not in terraced housing (much of which was cleared in the 1950s/60s) or in tower blocks which dominate in cities like Warsaw. As an example of housing currently being built, look at the development at the former Avro aerodrome site at Woodford, whose only public transport is an hourly bus service (evenings excepted) serving the centre of Woodford, not even running to the nearest major town (Stockport).

Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, provisional - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

London’s population density, at 5,701 people per square kilometre, is more than 10 times higher than that of the next most densely populated region of England (the North West).

 

[biko]

Holland is compact, has a higher population density in most localities than the UK, and along with most other European countries, cities/towns are much more compact. This facilitates high frequency. Outside London, the sort of integration and forced interchanges advocated by the likes of @johncrossley (who is London-based) is unrealistic. It won't work in semi-rural East Cheshire (where no bus or rail service has a frequency exceeding every 30 minutes) nor in my view in (most of) the Greater Manchester conurbation.

My reaction was to the post that the UK could not tender a set of routes as happens in the Netherlands because culture is different and therefore the interest of the transport authority would be different from the passengers. I simply cannot see why that would be the case in the UK but not in the Netherlands. Compactness, densities etc don’t have anything to do with how the tendering system is organised. A good tendering system, both containing bus and train, or just buses but with higher scoring for good connections should also be possible in the UK, independent of what type of area it is. The conditions of the tender are just different.

Incidentally, I started this part on tendering by mentioning the tender in my local area. This is also a semi-rural area with a larger city in it, but around it just villages and small towns. Most frequencies are hourly. The province wrote in the conditions that a certain list of villages/towns need to be connected at least every hour on weekdays, but also that at some stations buses need to have connections in a certain direction. If you want to maintain a commercial incentive, you can just add that the operator will receive a certain percentage of the revenue.

 

[johncrossley]

Most of Greater Manchester is not like London (or continental cities) in terms of population density. Most people in suburban areas live in detached or semi-detached housing, not in terraced housing (much of which was cleared in the 1950s/60s) or in tower blocks which dominate in cities like Warsaw. As an example of housing currently being built, look at the development at the former Avro aerodrome site at Woodford, whose only public transport is an hourly bus service (evenings excepted) serving the centre of Woodford, not even running to the nearest major town (Stockport).

Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, provisional - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

Semi-detached housing is also popular in the suburbs of the Netherlands. What percentage of the Greater Manchester population live in detached housing? Can't be more than 20%. People in the Netherlands live in detached housing as well. I've seen loads of leafy suburbs when driving around the Netherlands. In any case, why are you focusing so much on the suburban areas when there are plenty of dense urban areas where it can be done?

It doesn't matter anyway. We've already seen examples of integration in the most rural areas as well as suburban and urban areas. Switzerland famously has plenty of mountain villages where almost nobody lives yet is probably the most famous example of integrated transport.

My reaction was to the post that the UK could not tender a set of routes as happens in the Netherlands because culture is different and therefore the interest of the transport authority would be different from the passengers. I simply cannot see why that would be the case in the UK but not in the Netherlands. Compactness, densities etc don’t have anything to do with how the tendering system is organised. A good tendering system, both containing bus and train, or just buses but with higher scoring for good connections should also be possible in the UK, independent of what type of area it is. The conditions of the tender are just different.

The perception that tendering is only possible in big cities may come from the fact that London is the only area with full network tendering in the UK, although Manchester is soon to implement it. For some strange reason, in the mid 80s London was tendered with the rest of the country (except Northern Ireland) having deregulation. The rest of the country has tendering only for so-called "socially necessary" (but unprofitable) services. Although in general buses have been unprofitable for nearly 2 years, with the government choosing to simply bankroll existing private companies instead of using tendering. Full network tendering does exist in Jersey, as it has its own government separate from the UK, which I believe is considered reasonably successful.

 

[Falcon1200]

I just can't understand why, all things being equal, anyone would prefer an hour or more on a bus compared to a quick 5-10 minute standee bus ride then 20 minutes on a fast rapid transport rail service, all on one ticket?

Apart from the one ticket, that is precisely what my in-laws do ! They live a 15-minute walk, or 3-minute bus ride, from a station with trains to the big city (Glasgow) taking 30 minutes, but they instead use the bus throughout which takes just over an hour. The bus stops outside their house, and outside the station, but once on it they would rather stay there than change. One major issue is that their OAP passes give them free travel on buses but not trains, but even if it did apply to trains too they would still use the bus, given that changing takes time and means going out into the weather.
(It should be noted that the bus takes a different route from the train and is not therefore intended as a direct competitor).

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

For some strange reason, in the mid 80s London was tendered with the rest of the country (except Northern Ireland) having deregulation.

I imagine that the Tories were worried about losing votes if they inflicted deregulation on London.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Semi-detached housing is also popular in the suburbs of the Netherlands. What percentage of the Greater Manchester population live in detached housing? Can't be more than 20%. People in the Netherlands live in detached housing as well. I've seen loads of leafy suburbs when driving around the Netherlands. In any case, why are you focusing so much on the suburban areas when there are plenty of dense urban areas where it can be done?

It doesn't matter anyway. We've already seen examples of integration in the most rural areas as well as suburban and urban areas. Switzerland famously has plenty of mountain villages where almost nobody lives yet is probably the most famous example of integrated transport.



The perception that tendering is only possible in big cities may come from the fact that London is the only area with full network tendering in the UK, although Manchester is soon to implement it. For some strange reason, in the mid 80s London was tendered with the rest of the country (except Northern Ireland) having deregulation. The rest of the country has tendering only for so-called "socially necessary" (but unprofitable) services. Although in general buses have been unprofitable for nearly 2 years, with the government choosing to simply bankroll existing private companies instead of using tendering. Full network tendering does exist in Jersey, as it has its own government separate from the UK, which I believe is considered reasonably successful.

Well, having recently travelled to Guernsey, higher population density and a fully supported network operated under a cost plus management contract by CT Plus, a brand new fleet and a flat £1 fare, you'd have suspected that this would result in vehicles being well patronised and a lack of private car use. Er no, and indeed, there are several corridors from St Peter Port (to Fermain and Airport, or to St Sampson) where several routes combine to form an overall headway; no hub at the airport, no interchanges.

I think the questions of population density etc are a misnomer and a distraction.

The reality is that franchising, in and of itself, will not deliver better services. Better funding will. If someone is of the opinion that just because you highlight this issue (and they also believe that franchising = integration) then, by definition, you are anti-integration, then sorry but they are mistaken. That's like saying because you don't like the pips in raspberries, then by definition, you must be anti-fruit and by extension, pro-vegetable!! Better public transport is dependant on money - end of story. There's no surprise that those European countries who actually have good integrated transport are just those that invest in infrastructure, invest in services and also seek to limit car usage if not by congestion charging then by making it more difficult to park https://www.emta.com/IMG/pdf/brochure.pdf. In the UK, how many councils are providing free Christmas car parking...? I've just googled to discover Mendip (Wells/Glastonbury), Worcester, Dudley, Perth, Lancaster.... I could go on and on.

Also, integration must be pursued for the benefits that it will ACTUALLY deliver. It can't be for dogmatic reasons or purity of thought. Do it where it is appropriate, and if you do it, do it well. I know @Bletchleyite likes to dismiss Gateshead as being clearly daft.... well, yes it was yet it persisted for 5 years but equally, the ones at Heworth and Four Lane Ends survive and thrive to this day. It isn't that integration can't work but it isn't the silver bullet.

If I look at Greater Manchester, franchising is supposed to foretell a step change. Whatever happens, I expect it will occur and it will be portrayed as a success, much like how Brexit and free trade agreements are trumpeted. However, there's few operational savings to be had from margin erosion, very little on-road competition and overbussing, corridors where buses allegedly compete with Metrolink have seen a marked decline in parallel bus services (see Washway Road corridor, Eccles, Rochdale Road). Funding has been earmarked but for capital projects rather than revenue support. However, apparently, the great benefit of this is "integration". That this will solve the traffic problems yet with little in terms of bus priority and no curbs on the private car and with little to no revenue funding... You wonder why I'm cynical.

In Bristol, we spent £230m on the metrobus project. That's the local authorities and what did you get.... Well, the bus companies came in with new vehicles but the https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/first-bus-boss-blames-appalling-3740118 but much of the spending went on two brand new bypasses (albeit with a bus lane on them but one isn't actually served by many buses) and they removed a crucial bit of bus lane which is what James Freeman was illustrating; a temp move that became permanent.

And it's all the fault of the evil bus barons.... Give me strength! By all means, get bus companies to commit, sign on the dotted line, etc but it's up to local and central government to really take some difficult decisions in promoting public transport and not promoting, actively or tacitly, private car use. Franchising, integration.... it's only a part of the picture and it's not the most important element.

 

[johncrossley]

And it's all the fault of the evil bus barons.... Give me strength! By all means, get bus companies to commit, sign on the dotted line, etc but it's up to local and central government to really take some difficult decisions in promoting public transport and not promoting, actively or tacitly, private car use. Franchising, integration.... it's only a part of the picture and it's not the most important element.

I'd be surprised if anyone on this thread is against bus priority. It goes without saying that buses need to be quicker to become more attractive. Bus lanes and restrictions on private car use are not a controversial view (at least on this forum). You won't have a thread lasting several pages debating it. Franchising and integration by contrast seem to be very controversial, and we've already filled nearly 100 posts discussing it yet again. Are these topics ever discussed in other countries? Occasionally I look at Irish forums and I've seen some debate about bus franchising vs state ownership, with some people worried about the privatisation of public transport.

 

[daodao]

Bus lanes and restrictions on private car use are not a controversial view

I beg to disagree where they are imposed in areas where public transport is too infrequent to be usable on a "turn-up-and-go" basis. Bus lanes are a poor use of available road space if bus frequency is less than 10 buses per hour. Restrictions on car use per se (as distinct from polluting vehicles, whether bus or car) should only be introduced where public transport provision is good. One compromise solution is park-and-ride so that major town/city centres aren't clogged up with traffic, but people can drive from their residence to a convenient site with good parking facilities to change to public transport for the last few miles into the town/city centre.

 

[DanielB]

Franchising and integration by contrast seem to be very controversial, and we've already filled nearly 100 posts discussing it yet again. Are these topics ever discussed in other countries? Occasionally I look at Irish forums and I've seen some debate about bus franchising vs state ownership, with some people worried about the privatisation of public transport.

Hardly any discussion on franchising and integration on the Dutch forums, or at least no discussions like this one. When areas are tendered there obviously is a discussion around the tender, but main subjects are not franchising itself: discussion is mostly about the requirements set by the province tendering and in a later stage (when the winning bid is known) what the effects will be on routes and timetables.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'd be surprised if anyone on this thread is against bus priority. It goes without saying that buses need to be quicker to become more attractive. Bus lanes and restrictions on private car use are not a controversial view (at least on this forum). You won't have a thread lasting several pages debating it. Franchising and integration by contrast seem to be very controversial, and we've already filled nearly 100 posts discussing it yet again. Are these topics ever discussed in other countries? Occasionally I look at Irish forums and I've seen some debate about bus franchising vs state ownership, with some people worried about the privatisation of public transport.

Probably not discussed as it's not a change from their accepted norm.

Also, on a transport forum, it's not really a surprise to see that people are pro public transport. However, in the wider world, bus priority and restrictions on private car use ARE controversial. I mean everyone wants less congestion and better air quality but how many fancy giving up their cars to achieve it....?

Even in the UK, we see the disparity of spending. London gets nearly twice the national average per capita spent on transport; in real terms with many people and a limited geographical area, it isn't surprising that London has been seen as an exemplar. Until proper, consistent spending is targeted (and wisely spent) elsewhere to provide fast, robust alternatives to the private car, we aren't going to see any modal shift.

 

[biko]

The reality is that franchising, in and of itself, will not deliver better services.

That's of course true, but it does help delivering better services as conditions can be set to operators and operators can be forced to run on unprofitable hours, just like with railway franchising, and should help reduce the subsidy needed for evening services.

Better funding will.

Funding always helps, but some structures can help in delivering the results you want with less money.

There's no surprise that those European countries who actually have good integrated transport are just those that invest in infrastructure, invest in services and also seek to limit car usage if not by congestion charging then by making it more difficult to park https://www.emta.com/IMG/pdf/brochure.pdf.

I wouldn't say the Netherlands is doing a good job in discouraging car use. Parking is only outrageously expensive in Amsterdam and slightly less so in Utrecht and The Hague, but in the rest of the country prices are quite low. Actually, I was surprised by the high prices in the UK! There is no congestion charge anywhere in the country and the proposals for a road pricing scheme are just a distance-based price, so that doesn't do anything about it either.

Also, integration must be pursued for the benefits that it will ACTUALLY deliver. It can't be for dogmatic reasons or purity of thought. Do it where it is appropriate, and if you do it, do it well. I know @Bletchleyite likes to dismiss Gateshead as being clearly daft.... well, yes it was yet it persisted for 5 years but equally, the ones at Heworth and Four Lane Ends survive and thrive to this day. It isn't that integration can't work but it isn't the silver bullet.

I agree you should do it where it is useful, but looking at the UK now, it is so fragmented. There is a lot of potential for making connections work at stations. That will mean public transport is a good option for more people and will thus help in changing the modal split. It isn't the silver bullet, but it is an important first step as you make many more destinations viable. Next steps can be ticketing, funding etc.

If I look at Greater Manchester, franchising is supposed to foretell a step change. Whatever happens, I expect it will occur and it will be portrayed as a success, much like how Brexit and free trade agreements are trumpeted. However, there's few operational savings to be had from margin erosion, very little on-road competition and overbussing, corridors where buses allegedly compete with Metrolink have seen a marked decline in parallel bus services (see Washway Road corridor, Eccles, Rochdale Road). Funding has been earmarked but for capital projects rather than revenue support. However, apparently, the great benefit of this is "integration". That this will solve the traffic problems yet with little in terms of bus priority and no curbs on the private car and with little to no revenue funding... You wonder why I'm cynical.

Franchising works as good as the conditions and requirements set in the tender. But it at least gives the authorities more control over the conditions. I don't fully understand the rest of your comment. I do know integration can help to solve traffic problems by making public transport to be a better alternative and thus makes it possible to not use a car. These measures don't need to cost much, it is just more coordination than currently is the case.

And it's all the fault of the evil bus barons.... Give me strength! By all means, get bus companies to commit, sign on the dotted line, etc but it's up to local and central government to really take some difficult decisions in promoting public transport and not promoting, actively or tacitly, private car use. Franchising, integration.... it's only a part of the picture and it's not the most important element.

Franchising is an important tool to be able to implement measures that are against the wishes of bus companies, but needed for the total transport system. Integration improves public transport as a system. There are many other possible aspects, but I think these are quite important to be able to have change.

 

[JonasB]

Is that the case in the places where such forced interchange is currently used?

@biko @DanielB @Austriantrain @duesselmartin @JonasB Is that the experience in your own countries?

A direct journey is always better than one that involves a change. Forcing passengers to change is not that common to be honest and as far as I know mostly occurs in Stockholm and Gothenburg where long distance buses stop a bit outside the city centre. And at least in Stockholm I think it works pretty fine, since most people don't work at the central station, they need to change anyway. And might as well do it at Gullmarsplan instead.

An example from Uppland is the bus from Österbybruk to Uppsala. It stops along the way in Skyttorp, a small town along the rail line the regional trains stop. Allowing passengers to leave the bus and take the train to Uppsala, thus saving 20 minutes or so. But if they wish they can remain on the bus.