But in some cases, integration mean cost savings. For example, in many countries out of town bus services are truncated at metro stations at the edge of the city with through fares. This saves money compared to running the bus into the city centre, but that is what is done in the UK. Whenever this kind of truncation is discussed on forums, there are howls of complaints because they want to keep their existing direct bus. The classic example is the Tyne & Wear metro integration in the early 80s. People particularly criticise the Gateshead connection because Gateshead is just outside Newcastle city centre. Even those who are generally in favour of integration criticise it, using the fact that deregulation in 1986 ended this practice as evidence. But this is the sort of thing that is done in many European cities. It is very common for bus routes outside the UK to terminate at metro stations just outside the city centre, meaning that passengers are forced to change.
I think you are making a mistake in lumping all of the country together. You are right - in some cases, integration
may mean cost savings. But there are only a few cities in the UK that have metro stations at the edge of the City, with services that could cope with transfer of bus passengers onto. I suspect many forum members do not live in or around such places and do not recognise this as a nationwide fruit of integration (which of course it is not, due to the relatively small number of opportunities).
I lived and worked in the North East when the Gateshead transfer was introduced. I sampled this delight. I think there were some people who had no particular issue with it, and problems with others:
(a) With Gateshead being so close to Newcastle (and no intermediate stops over the Tyne Bridge), invariably there was no passenger journey time saving in travelling on the diverted bus service into the Interchange, alighting and walking over to the station building, down the escalator, waiting for a train, probably standing up in the train and then going up the escalator at the other end. Ditto for the reverse.
(b) this procedure adversely affecting the elderly and disabled much worse;
(c) on the return journey, the connecting bus services were often less frequent than the metro arrivals, meaning waiting periods in the unpleasant bus shelters at Gateshead Interchange bus station - not nice in the day, horrible at night. Whilst some of the loading points in Newcastle were dilapidated (Worswick St Bus Station), they were more open and less prone to anti-social behaviour.
When you mention 'integration', I think of what this would be in my town of residence - pop c80k. No metro. The railway station (a major junction) is a 20 min walk from the town centre, through an area of Victorian terraced housing full of parked cars, most not suitable for buses. There is no space for a bus station/stand near the station without expensive land acquisition/demolition which there is no money for. The railway line splits the town centre with it's northern suburbs, and any bus route going 'via' the station is either passing under a congested very low bridge, single alternate traffic signalled, or taking a major (10 min) diversion from the direct line of route between town centre and suburb. Any diversion or extension of an existing service is going to cost additional buses and staff for very little additional revenue. There is an imbalance of routes north and south of the railway line, and the low bridge precludes diversion of any double deck operated route via the Station. Any more 'integration' is going to cost buckets of money for no or very little return to the funder (be it bus company or Local Authority).
Of course, every town/city has its nuances, but it is no simple thing and the funding has to come from somewhere. This is before we start to think about synchronising timetables.......
A more subtle example is the way many bus routes converge into corridors, meaning there is over provision on the section of route close to the city centre. This is done so that everywhere has a direct bus to the city centre, but this involves a lot of duplication, and therefore costs money. In cities in other countries, they are more likely to want you to change between orbital and radial routes, meaning fewer places have a direct service to the city centre.
I do not think that the UK has the road infrastructure in place to reliably operate bus services that rely on connections in this way. Unimaginable.
I think there is more criticism of deregulation in the country as a whole. But you can clearly see there is strong support for deregulation on here. In the run up to Manchester bus franchising many forum members expressed their disapproval very strongly.
Yes, but you have to stand back a little from this. Many forum members will be/have been employed or associated with bus companies, and will have been tasked with doing their best in the deregulated system. Some will take calls for reregulation to be an implication that they have failed in their endeavours and understandably will defend the system they have worked in accordingly. This is a human trait. There are (certainly financial, and inertia) downsides to regulation - protagonists of it need to be aware of these and take steps to mitigate.
Oh, we can all go down the route that most people own cars, but the majority of people who use buses (myself included) have no attachment to the system of deregulation.
People who don't use buses probably couldn't care less.
Yes, but "on here" isn't representative of the country as a whole. Being pro-de-regulation is very much a niche position within the country I strongly suspect
You did say 'the majority of British residents' !!! Of people who use buses, I doubt whether the majority have any particular attachment or understanding to either system. Of pro-deregulation, I suspect that, if asked, not increasing taxes to regulate bus services is not only a niche position.
On the other hand, international visitors to this forum are even less representative of the average person, given that they have gone to the trouble of participating in a forum based in a foreign country, but the votes show a very strong disapproval of deregulation.
As the International visitors to the forum probably have little or no extensive exposure to the deregulated system, I don't think you can take any disapproval as representative. It is a question of public expenditure priorities - if their country is happy to spend their level of subsidy on public transport then as transport forum members they are unlikely to go for a reduction.
For years I have assumed that UK-style bus deregulation is not considered a good thing by people outside the UK, but it occurred to me that I have never actually checked that. The result of this poll seems to confirm my original suspicion.