Modal shift in the suburbs?

[TheManOnThe172]

How about this as a method for getting a reasonable feel for the extent to which suburban car users might be expected to voluntarily take public transport instead:

• Choose a drive-time value. Say 20 minutes as perhaps something close to the "modal" value of car trip.
• Calculate the travel time by public transport that might be a reasonable equivalent. To be generous to the "public transport" option I suggest adding 10 minutes to allow for time saved parking and walking from there to destination. Add a further 15 minutes to allow for the fact that bus itineraries today will be longer than those in an imagined future with heavier bus usage (because more users and/or heavier subsidies will justify better frequencies).
• Now choose a random suburban location (a home address, not a centre-of-locality location) and compare the area within your 20-min drive-time boundary and the area within the 45-min public transport travel-time boundary. The Traveltime app is good for this.
• Compare the size of the two areas to get a feel for how close to equivalence public transport might be in that imagined future.
• Repeat for other random suburban start points.

For most of the suburban locations I have tried, at offpeak times, the 45-minute public transport range is vastly smaller than the 20-minute driving range - suggesting that there will be many destinations where even an enhanced-frequency bus service won't be competitive with car usage. And that is before allowing for the reduced convenience (heavy or bulky stuff to carry, children, mobility limitations - or multiple destinations in one trip) or comfort (sat in warm dry car vs standing at cold/damp bus stop).

I reckon it is going to take quite a lot of "stick" (eg road pricing and/or parking taxes) to get most suburban dwellers to shift a useful proportion of their existing car travel onto bus. But we seemed doomed to waste years demonstrating the limited modal shift impact of "carrots" (low/zero fares, better frequencies, mobility hubs) before politicians will come to accept the inevitable.

 

[RT4038]

Part of the problem posed in the initial question is down to the effective population drop in rural villages in the last 40 years.
Between retirees "moving to the countryside" buying up rural housing at inflationary rates, others also paying inflationary rates to purchase second homes, along with exploitative purchases of housing to be used as holiday lets, the local working residents are forced out of the area. No working residents means no young families, so no commuting to work or school. The villages become sterile homes for the superannuated and rich, who are rarely in residence and when they are, are too lazy to do anything but drive to the nearest Waitrose. Shops die, schools die, bus services die. They're all symptoms of the same malaise. If workers could afford to live in the villages then the commuter bus services would follow, but there's sparse hope of that now.

Not sure that this is replicated in the rural areas of my county of residence.

Yes, there are some reasonably well off retirees 'moving to the countryside' buying up housing at inflationary rates, but no (or little) buying of second homes or exploitative or otherwise purchases of housing as holiday lets.
However, there are lots of professional/managerial/technical/work from home types, relatively well-off , often with children and/or 2 + vehicles, left the town for a quieter life and away from the oiks, who can afford to buy at so-called inflationary rates. The shops die because they can't compete with the prices and variety of Waitrose and other well known supermarkets, and the residents have the availability of private transport to reach them on tap. (Quite aside from the rise of internet shopping) The schools die because (a) small schools are no longer economical to run and it is cheaper to contract transport to larger sites with economies of scale, and (b) some of the children attend private schools. Aside from a small residual elderly population for shopping/medical trips the only transport requirement of anything larger than a taxi is a school bus, which often is a contract type service to a local authority school or private / grammar often miles away. On weekends and holidays parents/older siblings take their children by car to the local shopping mall/leisure centre etc to 'hang out' with their friends. There is little business for a public bus service.

Plenty of working residents, just none or very, very, few who would even think about travelling by bus. Why be beholden to a timetable, bus routes and bus staff if you don't have to? The odd person who is in a family of only one car perhaps? I don't think the majority of bus dependent workers in this country would even dream of living in villages nowadays. Just too isolating.

 

[renegademaster]

Bike racks on rural buses would be nice. America manages it , I don't why it's never really taken off in Europe? Safety regs?

 

[Simon75]

Bike racks on rural buses would be nice. America manages it , I don't why it's never really taken off in Europe? Safety regs?

This thread answers some of your questions

Why don't UK buses carry bicycles?

buses and coaches will have to have bike space unless the bidders come up with a satisfactory reason why they should not This reminds me (but in a separate thread, as it's rather off-topic): why do so few UK buses carry bicycles? Where I grew up (near Seattle), buses universally had a bike rack...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[HullRailMan]

It still baffles me why new developments have so few requirements to provide enhanced transport infrastructure as part of planning consent. Take Beverley (East Riding) as an example. Huge housing development at Molescroft to the north of the town on both sides of the Hull-Scarborough rail line but never any suggestion of a new station. The same is now happening to the south of the town with vast housing developments either side of the rail line but again no station. It’s the same at Brough where the town has effectively doubled (if not more) in size in the last 20 years alongside the rail line but no plans for a ‘Brough East’ station. At the same time, both Brough and Beverley now have worse bus services than before the expansions began 20 years ago, despite significantly bigger populations.

 

[RT4038]

It still baffles me why new developments have so few requirements to provide enhanced transport infrastructure as part of planning consent. Take Beverley (East Riding) as an example. Huge housing development at Molescroft to the north of the town on both sides of the Hull-Scarborough rail line but never any suggestion of a new station. The same is now happening to the south of the town with vast housing developments either side of the rail line but again no station. It’s the same at Brough where the town has effectively doubled (if not more) in size in the last 20 years alongside the rail line but no plans for a ‘Brough East’ station. At the same time, both Brough and Beverley now have worse bus services than before the expansions began 20 years ago, despite significantly bigger populations.

Mainly because the capital cost of providing a new station is disproportionate to the number of people it would directly benefit, resulting in much higher house prices (probably unsellable). Remembering that the developments will likely have been applied for piecemeal over a period of time, as this is the way of most housebuilding in this country, rather than a single plan.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Been lurking on this thread and enjoying the discussion on this. Some very good points made by the usual suspects - @RT4038 @TheManOnThe172 and @greenline712

FWIW, there has to be some agreement on the definitions being used. If we're talking about rural bus services, then sadly we are at a point of barely scraping a justification, let alone a commercially viable service. I recall my experiences of the early 1980s, you would often have peak hour services with schoolchildren and a smattering of workers, invariably non-driving women who worked in shops or offices, or if they had a license, the husband would invariably have the sole car in the household.

Society has now changed. More people have driving licenses; please note that the graph in the link shows this development predates bus deregulation. https://www.statista.com/statistics/314886/percentage-of-adults-holding-driving-licences-england/ and indeed, these villages are invariably more expensive in which to purchase a house and people are generally more affluent. Added to that, you have had a decline in the cost of motoring in real terms; this Parker's article https://www.parkers.co.uk/50-anniversary/costs-of-driving/ really highlights how that has changed. The list price of a car has gone up with wage inflation, fuel has outstripped it but cars are much more fuel efficient, more reliable, cost less to tax and insure, and are a lot more durable. Look at the number of 20 year old cars on the road! So truly rural bus services are really dependant on subsidy, however you want to look at it, to meet the declining but evident need.

Then you have inter-urban services that also travel through tracts of rural territory. Some of those ARE successful but why? Well, linking town A and town B generates enough of a flow in itself and that serving a number of villages en route without too much deviation supports the creation of a critical mass of customers. However, there's something else that is evident in the successful examples, and there are certain aspects that are common to them and to suburban services.

Normal people don't travel by bus for fun. They have to have a reason to travel i.e. derived demand. A requirement to get from A to B. Also, there has to be a recognition that it has to be reliable - you go out for a bus, it turns up at the time you expect, and it deposits you at the time promised. Sounds like an entry level requirement but it THE single most important element, and yet it often doesn't happen. There are culpable bus operators - vehicles breaking down, insufficient drivers etc, and some of that must be put at the operators door (though not exclusively).

However, inexorably tied to this reliability is speed. We have seen many examples where local services have withered on the vine (for various reasons) and they have been (partially replaced) by diverting another service. It makes commercial sense but also results in convoluted routeing and time penalties. Two routes not able to stand on their own are amalgamated, and in extreme cases, that can be compounded by further tagging on of bits of route. The historic service 1 from Bishop Auckland to Darlington has gone from a 40 min journey time in 1990, to 52 mins by 2017, and to 56 mins now, as it has absorbed two additional sections of route. 40 mins might have been acceptable vs a 25-30 min car journey but not an hour. It is a judgment of Solomon to elect to simply cut routes and leave sections unserved, but you can see why people who are time precious don't use public transport.

Clearly, we could have lots of nice carrots - cheap fares (like the £2 fare to help the cost of living crisis, not the operator, please note) or even subsidising additional routes. Perhaps a bit of BSIP funding might allow the 1 to omit bits of Shildon and bring that time differential down? However, carrots alone won't be enough and sadly, the libertarian right have whipped the government into stopping the War on the Motorist (like that was ever a thing). In fact, people like Mark Harper are parroting stuff against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and 15 minute cities that come from the foil hatters, emboldened by the Uxbridge by-election. And yet, in terms of land use and road space, we need to be taking some action to restrict the unfettered use of the private car. Not talking about wielding a big stick but taking an approach that actually begins to redress the balance and gives the lie to the War on the Motorist. However, it's not easy. There is the car lobby, and the libertarian twitterati who believe that any curb on private car use is a precursor to authoritarian control by "the elite" (believe me, I heard it on Rumble, and it's all about control and the WEF) when what we need is a long term solution that prioritises public transport. Local authorities need to be properly funded - many are skint anyway and they can't afford to take a major hit on car park revenues. The focus on re-election gives us a political, short termist approach, and we're seeing this in the £2 funding plan. I don't know how you depoliticise things without removing accountability.

Back to the examples I mooted before, we've seen services in Oxford and Brighton succeed not because of the ownership model. It's the approach of local authorities in gradually tilting the balance back aware from being overwhelmingly car. Tackle the challenges of illegal parking and bus lane enforcement, remove roadside parking gradually, improve priority, and reduce the differential between car and bus, and you might have a bit of a chance.

ps there are loads more I could say about developers and land use etc but I've typed enough!

 

[markymark2000]

It still baffles me why new developments have so few requirements to provide enhanced transport infrastructure as part of planning consent.

Because far too many councils don't give a stuff about buses. Developers won't go above and beyond to do things that won't make them money and bus stops is one of those things, they don't make money, they cost money. It's therefore on councils to put in demands for bus stops and far too many of them don't. Combine that with a stupid system which says '400m is an acceptable distance to be from a bus stop'. Now that is all well and good and I would support that, however that distance is radius, not actual walking distance so there are a number of developments approved as they claim to be 'well served by public transport' but as soon as you look at the documents, you see it's quite different. We have all seen the developments where new houses face the main road but then there are shed loads of fences stopping people walking 10 metres from their front door, to the main road, Car centric developers, planning teams and councillors all want people to walk hundreds of metres around all of the houses rather than permit, small paths for pedestrians, it's ludicrous.

One development in Winnington, Northwich of over 1,000 homes. Council only asked for the bus to be in place from completion and there was no requirement for bus stops to be put up and so when the bus service started and the bus stops went up, locals started kicking off that the bus stops were near their house and bus stops were taking up their parking spaces and so now there is an hourly bus plodding through, long after most residents have sorted their journeys, and there are no official bus stops. The council applied to itself for planning permission to install bus stops in November 2022 and that planning application still isn't approved, you can read some of the amazing comments on the planning portal too, mostly kicking off that the bus stop is removing their unofficial parking. (Cheshire West Planning Application 22/04460/FUL Linked for ease). It's a farce, all caused by idiocy/incompetence somewhere between developers and the council. This situation never needed to be so bad, the trunk road was built early on, buses could have gone in from 1/2 of the houses being occupied, get people used to the bus and bus stops. Parking wouldn't have been an issue as people wouldn't have got into the mindset of parking where they want (at least in theory).

There's also a huge development in Ledsham near Ellesmere Port. 1,000+ homes again. The development makes limited provision for buses until the very, very last phase where they will put in a bus gate. They know damn well that by the last phase, things will change and so either the bus gate won't be built or when the service is introduced, it will be far too late for it to be useful. Seems to be a lot of short term thinking in councils whereby they don't want developer funded buses to work because the more popular they become, the harder they are to cut in a few years time when funding runs out. As of 17th August 2023, in response to an FOI, it was revealed that they were 'negotiating with bus operators' on what buses to run here. They asked for the money at 350 dwellings (reasonable), they say the development is now at 450 and it's all still discussions. The S106 said what the funding was there for but now, of course, we have to have more discussions and let more people move in, sort their travel habits, then they will throw a bus in when it's far too late.

Saighton Camp development near Huntington, Chester. The bus terminates at the site entrance rather than extend the bus by 1 minute into the development to terminate (there is a roundabout there to turn around). Money got thrown at the service to boost it's frequency and improve with crossings to access the bus, but that's no use when for so many people, they would have to walk a kilometre to the bus stop. Why would they do that when they can jump straight into their car and be in the city probably quicker than they can walk to the bus stop, that's before you consider waiting for the bus and the journey.


Even where councils and developers do sort buses, it's not always well executed. Leicesters New Lubbesthorpe has a half decent bus service now they've sacked off the DRT, only issue, the development is huge but only has a single bus stop pair. The rest is 'hail and ride'. The issue with that is, people who are new to using buses, get very nervous with this, so much so that some areas such as Milton Keynes and London are/have been removing hail and ride in favour of fixed bus stops. The other issue is, there is no safe place for people with disabilities to board, except this single bus stop as the rest of the road is grassed between the road and pavement, the only time the pavement gets to the road is dropped kerbs for driveways or pedestrian crossings. None of which are safe for wheelchair users to board/alight the bus. The photo below is in the development. Can someone point out where it is safe to for a bus to stop and safely alight passengers with reduced mobility, or even load pushchairs etc etc. The development is throwing so much money at running buses (Very good, long overdue to see a development doing this) but all that money is a waste if people can't actually use the bus.



Nothing will change in new development areas until someone starts to stand up for buses. Operators don't care unless they are paid for serving the sites. Councils don't care because car is king and brings them parking revenue. Developers, in terms of buses, provide the bare minimum that is asked for and that relies on councils/bus operators.

 

[RT4038]

Nothing will change in new development areas until someone starts to stand up for buses.

So, in practical terms, who is going to stand up for buses? Certainly not people who don't ride buses, or aspire not to. This leaves a small number; on the average housing development that you refer to, a very small number...

Operators don't care unless they are paid for serving the sites.

Because they know that they are unlikely to ever reach commercial status.

Councils don't care because car is king and brings them parking revenue.

Ultimately Councils prioritise what the voters want - which for the vast majority is private transport. The majority of voters/residents have no interest in using buses , and see them as a nuisance. Poor public transport is seen by such people as a good reason not to have their driving activities curtailed. I doubt very much that car parking revenue has any bearing on the average Council's bus policies.

Developers, in terms of buses, provide the bare minimum that is asked for and that relies on councils/bus operators.

Developers want to sell houses at the best profit . Buses disturbing the peace and bus stops outside houses do not, in their opinion, generally help them achieve that aim. Developers lobby to keep the minimum as bare as possible. Once they have sold all the houses they care not one jot about buses until they move to the next site.

 

[telstarbox]

It still baffles me why new developments have so few requirements to provide enhanced transport infrastructure as part of planning consent. Take Beverley (East Riding) as an example. Huge housing development at Molescroft to the north of the town on both sides of the Hull-Scarborough rail line but never any suggestion of a new station. The same is now happening to the south of the town with vast housing developments either side of the rail line but again no station. It’s the same at Brough where the town has effectively doubled (if not more) in size in the last 20 years alongside the rail line but no plans for a ‘Brough East’ station. At the same time, both Brough and Beverley now have worse bus services than before the expansions began 20 years ago, despite significantly bigger populations.

I'd be surprised if two stations in Beverley resulted in a net increase in passengers.

 

[HullRailMan]

I'd be surprised if two stations in Beverley resulted in a net increase in passengers.

I wouldn’t - Beverley station is on the ‘other side’ of town from Molescroft and has a relatively small parking area and poor bus links. The time gain from using the train to Hull is offset by the time it takes to get to the station. Similarly, the new houses to the south of Beverley would have to travel away from Hull to get the train back the other way. A greatly expanded town all round with little provision for anyone without a car.

 

[markymark2000]

So, in practical terms, who is going to stand up for buses? Certainly not people who don't ride buses, or aspire not to. This leaves a small number; on the average housing development that you refer to, a very small number...

That's part of the issue. No one does really stand up for buses. There are supposedly groups out there like Transport Focus and Bus Users UK

Because they know that they are unlikely to ever reach commercial status.

But arguably the same could have been said about every single bus route currently operating. Someone, somewhere, had to take a punt on it. For a dedicated route, it's going to be hard to make it pay as you are relying solely on passengers in the development. If you are able to divert a bus, it has a higher chance of succeeding I think.

There will always be examples where it does/doesn't work. It doesn't help the potential for the route to become viable though with how these developments are currently built. Especially when in many cases, they are also not very good for pedestrians and cyclists so not only do you affect buses, you make it inconvenient for people to walk or cycle. We aren't in America, some people walk, cycle and use buses and developers should be banned from building developments which discourage people taking less polluting modes of transport. I am not saying to ban cars or make it more inconveniet for cars, just ma

Ultimately Councils prioritise what the voters want - which for the vast majority is private transport. The majority of voters/residents have no interest in using buses , and see them as a nuisance. Poor public transport is seen by voters as a good reason not to have their driving activities curtailed. I doubt very much that car parking revenue has any bearing on the average Council's bus policies.

I don't think a lot of councils do prioritise what voters want, that's in general though, not just to buses. That's a huge other topic though. I'm not saying they have to put a huge busway through a development to support public transport. Just make it easier to walk, cycle and access public transport. Merseytravel I know have in the past just asked for the bus stop outside the development to have a shelter put there. Bus stop wasn't moving and caused no issues but putting a shelter there makes using the bus more attractive. Such a small thing in the grand scheme of things but can make such a big difference.

This is one example in Congleton, Cheshire. These houses are 25 metres from a bus stop but because of the developer wanting to not accommodate anyone walking/cycling or accessing buses, people are forced to go on a 500 metre walk all around all of the houses to get to this bus stop. People who do not use the car are forced to go 25x further distance than necessary, all because the developer didn't put in, and the council never demanded a 2.5metre path link between the development and the main road.

Developers want to sell houses at the best profit . Buses disturbing the peace and bus stops outside houses do not, in their opinion, generally help them achieve that aim. Developers lobby to keep the minimum as bare as possible. Once they have sold all the houses they care not one jot about buses until they move to the next site.

Most of this is understandable on the developers part. The only thing is the irony in saying buses disturb the peace and quiet and yet car engines don't. People dumping vehicles here, there and everywhere also isn't causing disruption to peoples lives. Buses can help to reduce the amount of cars on the road so less cars wanting the parking spaces, less traffic at site entrances etc.

 

[Snex]

I can't comment on other areas of the country but personally I always find there's a big problem that all the buses in suburb head towards to the centre of the city / local town but in reality most people want to go around to the nearest retail park, supermarket or the out of town office block and aren't going to travel 40 minutes into town to travel 30 minutes back when it's 10 minutes in the car.

The service can be every 5 minutes towards town, without radical route changes, things won't change. It's even a problem in London, hence the new Superloop, nevermind elsewhere.

 

[RT4038]

However, inexorably tied to this reliability is speed. We have seen many examples where local services have withered on the vine (for various reasons) and they have been (partially replaced) by diverting another service. It makes commercial sense but also results in convoluted routeing and time penalties. Two routes not able to stand on their own are amalgamated, and in extreme cases, that can be compounded by further tagging on of bits of route. The historic service 1 from Bishop Auckland to Darlington has gone from a 40 min journey time in 1990, to 52 mins by 2017, and to 56 mins now, as it has absorbed two additional sections of route. 40 mins might have been acceptable vs a 25-30 min car journey but not an hour. It is a judgment of Solomon to elect to simply cut routes and leave sections unserved, but you can see why people who are time precious don't use public transport.

!

And of course by passes on the main roads being built, Heighington and Shildon being cases in point on your Service 1, giving faster car journey times (not only actually faster, but seems much faster than that!)

Perhaps a bit of BSIP funding might allow the 1 to omit bits of Shildon and bring that time differential down?

I should think it would be difficult to justify spending BSIP funding on a couple of additional peak vehicles ( £200k each per annum) to serve parts of Shildon in order to gain a small amount of additional revenue by speeding up the 1. (especially when there is already a faster alternative in the train, although neither Darlington stations are close to where most people want to go to). As your rightly say - judgment of Solomon and why go through all that earache.......

That's part of the issue. No one does really stand up for buses. There are supposedly groups out there like Transport Focus and Bus Users UK

Exactly. These groups are very feint voices, and nobody who understands and is in a position to do anything is interested in listening to them anyway. Why? Because they have got private transport, and have no wish for the freedom this confers (from timetables, staff and management, fellow passengers, inconvenience) to be reduced or taken away even in the slightest. Why bother promoting, prioritising, getting all the earache from something that most people have already voted with their feet not to use?

But arguably the same could have been said about every single bus route currently operating. Someone, somewhere, had to take a punt on it. For a dedicated route, it's going to be hard to make it pay as you are relying solely on passengers in the development. If you are able to divert a bus, it has a higher chance of succeeding I think.

With the big bus groups warming towards franchising, and small bus companies running commercial local bus services vanishing, the only people who are going to take as punt at it are Local Transport Authorities, whose budgets are stretched to breaking point with statutory duties of Adult and Child Social Care and Special Education needs/ School Transport. Diverting a bus is probably going to annnoy existing passengers, so why do that for the possibility of a few from the new development? (see post #37 from @TheGrandWazoo on journey times above).

View attachment 150093


Most of this is understandable on the developers part. The only thing is the irony in saying buses disturb the peace and quiet and yet car engines don't. People dumping vehicles here, there and everywhere also isn't causing disruption to peoples lives. Buses can help to reduce the amount of cars on the road so less cars wanting the parking spaces, less traffic at site entrances etc.

All of this is prepared to be discounted against the freedom of private car use.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2024 ==

There will always be examples where it does/doesn't work. It doesn't help the potential for the route to become viable though with how these developments are currently built. Especially when in many cases, they are also not very good for pedestrians and cyclists so not only do you affect buses, you make it inconvenient for people to walk or cycle. We aren't in America, some people walk, cycle and use buses and developers should be banned from building developments which discourage people taking less polluting modes of transport. I am not saying to ban cars or make it more inconveniet for cars, just ma

You need to get some understanding of development design criterea, particularly that of 'self policing' and the discouragement of multiple accesses and warrens of footpaths. Public Transport access is only one of a number of competing priorities, and a relatively low one at that.
We may not be in America, but the trends are going the way of theirs - shopping malls , ouit of town office parks, declining town centres, drive thru', car is king; and it is what most people are voting with their feet and wheels for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most of this is understandable on the developers part. The only thing is the irony in saying buses disturb the peace and quiet and yet car engines don't. People dumping vehicles here, there and everywhere also isn't causing disruption to peoples lives. Buses can help to reduce the amount of cars on the road so less cars wanting the parking spaces, less traffic at site entrances etc.

The idea that people will choose not to own cars because of the existence of bus services is a bus that we have frankly missed. Bus services aren't consistent or stable enough for major life choices to be made around them. People might choose a one-car household over two because of a train service, by contrast, as that's unlikely to go away (I know a couple who did do this, but they've gone back to two cars now they've got a kid on the way). Buses do have the potential to reduce car use, but are unlikely to reduce ownership.

The thing that might realistically make people go from a two to a one car household is a car club, allowing easy and quick hire of an additional car for a local journey if necessary. Which gives yet another example of why in urban areas transport (public and road management) should be coordinated and managed by one organisation, as they can include things like this too and allocate roadspace accordingly.

By the way in your Congleton example if you look at Streetview it appears that "desire paths" have appeared in the hedge, though I agree it's absolutely rubbish there isn't a cut-through properly built near the bus stop end.

 

[Bantamzen]

This is one example in Congleton, Cheshire. These houses are 25 metres from a bus stop but because of the developer wanting to not accommodate anyone walking/cycling or accessing buses, people are forced to go on a 500 metre walk all around all of the houses to get to this bus stop. People who do not use the car are forced to go 25x further distance than necessary, all because the developer didn't put in, and the council never demanded a 2.5metre path link between the development and the main road.
View attachment 150093


Most of this is understandable on the developers part. The only thing is the irony in saying buses disturb the peace and quiet and yet car engines don't. People dumping vehicles here, there and everywhere also isn't causing disruption to peoples lives. Buses can help to reduce the amount of cars on the road so less cars wanting the parking spaces, less traffic at site entrances etc.

Ah yes, joined up thinking there. And do you know what, I'd put money on there being a discussion between developer and council about it, with neither willing to commit the vast sums of money to put in a 2.5m long bit of tarmac in to get it done!

By the way in your Congleton example if you look at Streetview it appears that "desire paths" have appeared in the hedge, though I agree it's absolutely rubbish there isn't a cut-through properly built near the bus stop end.

And if you look at the stop across the road, the escape committee can be seen shaking of the remnants of the hedge out of their trouser legs, and celebrating their new found freedom...

 

[markymark2000]

the only people who are going to take as punt at it are Local Transport Authorities, whose budgets are stretched to breaking point with statutory duties of Adult and Child Social Care and Special Education needs/ School Transport. Diverting a bus is probably going to annnoy existing passengers, so why do that for the possibility of a few from the new development? (see post #37 from @TheGrandWazoo on journey times above).

S106 funding would mean it wouldn't strain LA budgets, the funds would come from developers.
Diverting buses can annoying existing passengers, it depends on the time penalty though and how many existing bus stops may be missed. You seem to be saying it as if every single site is the same. There are a number of sites where it could/does work, and a number of sites where it wouldn't work. There are a number of instances where existing bus stops could serve estates but because of how the site is developed, this isn't the case.

All of this is prepared to be discounted against the freedom of private car use.

How on earth does a bus stop have any effect the freedom of private car use? Parking is still available at the houses, roads are still clear, I am asking for a small flag on a pole and some painting on the road. It has zero effect on the freedom of private car use, it's about giving people choice.

We may not be in America, but the trends are going the way of theirs - shopping malls , ouit of town office parks, declining town centres, drive thru', car is king; and it is what most people are voting with their feet and wheels for.

But how much of that is because of planning policies? Where there is public transport available, people should be able to use it easily. What end outcome were you expecting when you are forcing people to walk 25x longer than necessary to make a journey, of course people are going to be pushed into their cars! The shorter the walk to anywhere (shops, schools, workplace, bus stops), the more likely people are to walk instead of drive. This discussion isn't limited to getting people on buses but more offering people an attractive alternative to cars and thanks to the planning departments, the way developments are being built only encourages people to use their car and makes limited provision for any other transport. That can change easily and as per my example, a 2.5m walkway could change how people make their journeys.

By the way in your Congleton example if you look at Streetview it appears that "desire paths" have appeared in the hedge, though I agree it's absolutely rubbish there isn't a cut-through properly built near the bus stop end.

Desire paths are wonderful until you realise how inaccessible they are to anyone who is less able, kids on scooters, parents with pushchairs. Generally not advisable during poor weather as the grass will be wet. Sadly, as RT4038 says, we are pushing towards being America. We are forcing pedestrians to only walk where we want them to and the worst examples now are, any potential desire paths are instead blocked with fences such as this one near Maghull North. The red mark is a fence which can be seen on the second photo. The green line on photo 1 shows the distance that someone would have to walk to access the bus stop. The bus stop has the hourly Maghull Circulars bus from 7.30am-11.30pm. If you include the bus stop on the other side of the road too, they create 2 buses per hour on the circulars running from the morning peak until nearly midnight. That's a pretty good bus service in the scheme of things, and yet people here can't access it without fence hopping or walking quite a distance around the estate.



For some of the worst examples of 'Developers/Councils against buses', Stafford has an excellent one, just north of Parkside. There is a huge development there which forces people to walk stupid distances to buses. On the A34, there are 2 buses per hour from First, the A513 has buses every 20 minutes from Select. That's a really good bus network you may say. There is no path link at all from the development to the A34 though for people to use First 101. The only entrance/exit from the site is Newbold Drive, there are no other path links to the A513 and above all else, Staffordshire council haven't put bus stop on the A513 for people to make use of the bus. People have to walk to Parkside Drive for a bus. They live 20 odd metres from a main road with a bus every 20 minutes, but they have to walk 850 metres to their closest bus stop? And yet somehow this is all acceptable? Modal shift will never happen while councils and developers keep approving stupid schemes like this which are so anti active travel/public transport.

 

[RT4038]

S106 funding would mean it wouldn't strain LA budgets, the funds would come from developers.

But s106 is not some kind of unlimited amount that can be demanded from Developers - a development is going to be about 400 houses before the LA can get sufficient cash to fund an extra vehicle operating for 5 years, and nowadays it is unlikely to be commercial at the end of it, so will be a call on LA funding if the service is to continue. I know of at least one LA who doesn't routinely ask for bus service funding because they do not want the burden, or be blamed, for service cuts/discontinuance in the future. You need to understand the politics - house prices have to be competitive/ affordable, and LAs have new housing targets to achieve. s106 requests for bus service provision are not going to be allowed to interfere with this, nor will any significant land take for bus facilities. I know of one large housing development where all the s106 transport funding was used towards construction of a bypass to benefit the entire town; 10 years later it still has only a peripheral bus service. The world hasn't stopped and there is not much complaint.

Diverting buses can annoying existing passengers, it depends on the time penalty though and how many existing bus stops may be missed. You seem to be saying it as if every single site is the same. There are a number of sites where it could/does work, and a number of sites where it wouldn't work. There are a number of instances where existing bus stops could serve estates but because of how the site is developed, this isn't the case.

I am not saying that every site is the same - of course it isn't. In exactly the same way that you appear to be saying that the bus service to every new development is hampered by stupid staff of Local Authorities or bus companies. You need to understand the politics of planning and new developments - these are the politics of your fellow citizens, a majority of whom couldn't care less about buses as they never wish to ride on them. (This is not the Politicians, but the politics of ordinary citizens who influence the Politicians).
That isn't to say that there haven't been stupid decisions made, or opportunities missed, but I think there is more to this than meets the eye.

How on earth does a bus stop have any effect the freedom of private car use? Parking is still available at the houses, roads are still clear, I am asking for a small flag on a pole and some painting on the road. It has zero effect on the freedom of private car use, it's about giving people choice.

They don't want a bus stop outside their house (or within close proximity); they don't want people (especially societies' losers who don't have a car) congregating outside their house, peering in, being a nuisance, throwing rubbish in their gardens (cigarette buts, cans etc when the bus approaches ), bus stop taking up kerbside parking space. Even worse when the LA wants to put a shelter up for such bus passengers, which may become a place of nocturnal youth congregation. If you have no interest in using buses, ever, why would you want such a thing outside your house, potentially reducing the resale value? Bearing in mind modern developments have house frontages all along the road, in order to pack the houses in.
People have a choice - buy and use a car, or call an Uber/taxi. Run some buses if you want to, but make the users walk to the main road and have them screened by a fence or bushes or a bund.

Part of the problem is that the Planning departments don't recognise these issues, thinking that bringing buses into developments and within 400m is a good thing, but our way of development (lots of small schemes developed gradually, packed in housing to make the site viable, so as not to raise the ire of existing residents too much by stating and planning for the full extent from the start) does not lend itself to sensible bus route planning, and this often means spine roads that are also residential. Couple that with insufficient parking space for 3 or 4 vehicles per house.....

 

[markymark2000]

Your comments are absolutely appalling saying that bus users are 'societies' losers who don't have a car'. A number of people do CHOOSE to travel on buses, some even have cars but choose to travel by bus where they can. So much I want to say but won't. You should be ashamed of your comments though.

In exactly the same way that you appear to be saying that the bus service to every new development is hampered by stupid staff of Local Authorities or bus companies.

And yet you give a perfect example by saying LA staff not trying get buses running incase it doesn't become commercial. Interesting though they are happy to do service improvement with BSIP and Rural Mobility Funds knowing most of the schemes will fail. LA staff simply don't want new developments to have anyone arriving/leaving the sites by any means other than cars. It's nothing to do with caring about the service being cut because that is happening already thanks to short termism from staff pushing, like you, an anti public transport ideology.


It's worth noting, London can make low car ownership developments work by removing the parking and having a lot of cycle parking. Look at the whole Barking Riverside area, that whole area was made to accommodate transport and who is complaining there? Outside of London though, there are plenty of developments that accommodate cars normally but still have an excellent bus service. Cranbrook in Exeter, Didcot Great Western Park, Picket Twenty Andover, Anston Park Andover, St Edeyrns Park in Cardiff. Are residents in these developments all complaining because there are buses going through? Gloucester has 3 developments which have buses every 20 minutes each way (Route 8) so those residents are having at least 6 buses per hour going past. There are other examples but they are in the minority. If local authorities want to, they can push a development to support buses and as is proven with some of these places, they do not have the issues that you are claiming they would face. You are creating barriers to push a pro car ideology.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Your comments are absolutely appalling saying that bus users are 'societies' losers who don't have a car'. A number of people do CHOOSE to travel on buses, some even have cars but choose to travel by bus where they can. So much I want to say but won't. You should be ashamed of your comments though.

Perhaps @RT4038 has neglected to put “societies’ losers” in inverted commas, because I’m fairly certain that he is referring to the quote (wrongly attributed to Margaret Thatcher) that anyone who is taking the bus at age 30 can be accurately described as a failure.

You may be unaware of the quote, or that people have that perception. I don’t think that @RT4038 was espousing that as his personal view but rather that some people most definitely do.

I know of people who definitely would get a train/tube but not a bus.

Now it would be good if we could get back onto the subject at hand.

 

[RT4038]

Your comments are absolutely appalling saying that bus users are 'societies' losers who don't have a car'. A number of people do CHOOSE to travel on buses, some even have cars but choose to travel by bus where they can. So much I want to say but won't. You should be ashamed of your comments though.

I am pointing out to you what many of your fellow citizens feel about having bus stops (and often buses running past) their new houses. You can be appalled, but it is an unfortunate fact. I don't personally ascribe to such views, although wouldn't want a bus stop outside my front door on an open plan development. There are a number of people who choose to travel on buses, but on new developments in particular this is pretty niche and often not enough to sway mainstream opinion (of residents, elected members and officials across all disciplines) into taking buses seriously, nor sufficient to provide commerciality to bus operators.

In a development near me, about 500 fairly standard upmarket houses built and occupied so far, two bus routes (one half hourly through the heart of the development and going to the Railway Station and the town Centre directly and one hourly on the periphery via another less direct route - about 40 departures per day) has roughly 50 boardings per day . About 25 of those will be schoolchildren on two specific departures. Not many making a choice then.

And yet you give a perfect example by saying LA staff not trying get buses running incase it doesn't become commercial.

Yes, it is an example, but you cannot tar every Authority's staff with the same brush. And knowing the sort of vilification that can come with service cuts/withdrawals I can understand the sentiment, although it is a defeatist attitude that I would not generally subscribe to. However, if funding is not going to be available to continue services after the s106 money has run out (or services cut elsewhere in order to accommodate some kind of reduced service), it can be questioned as to the sense of creating the desire in the first place?

Interesting though they are happy to do service improvement with BSIP and Rural Mobility Funds knowing most of the schemes will fail. LA staff simply don't want new developments to have anyone arriving/leaving the sites by any means other than cars. It's nothing to do with caring about the service being cut because that is happening already thanks to short termism from staff pushing, like you, an anti public transport ideology.

Got to smile with your views on my ideology (not that you have any idea) : I am just pointing out to you what barriers there are to a pro public transport ideology in society nowadays - outside of major cities most people want to make their journeys by car and don't want the price of their houses to be increased, or their taxation increased, for public transport provision that they will not use. Whether you like it or not. You may think them stupid, but LA staff (and there are a large number involved who are not directly in the transport discipline) generally reflect that mainstream view that has become the norm in society.

It's worth noting, London can make low car ownership developments work by removing the parking and having a lot of cycle parking. Look at the whole Barking Riverside area, that whole area was made to accommodate transport and who is complaining there? Outside of London though, there are plenty of developments that accommodate cars normally but still have an excellent bus service. Cranbrook in Exeter, Didcot Great Western Park, Picket Twenty Andover, Anston Park Andover, St Edeyrns Park in Cardiff. Are residents in these developments all complaining because there are buses going through? Gloucester has 3 developments which have buses every 20 minutes each way (Route 8) so those residents are having at least 6 buses per hour going past. There are other examples but they are in the minority. If local authorities want to, they can push a development to support buses and as is proven with some of these places, they do not have the issues that you are claiming they would face. You are creating barriers to push a pro car ideology.

In some cases, where there are large developments they can ( and do, as you point out), because there is the space available and sufficient funding for facilities and services. However there any many, many more small developments (infill, or parcels of land being developed separately both in terms of developers and timespan) where this is simply an issue of the economics of packing houses in and consequently roads not really wide enough for buses and the car parking requirement / no space for bus stops away from frontages (the sort of estates that you have given some examples of in earlier posts). District Councils being Planning Authority and County Councils being Transport Authority does not help either.

As far as residents complaining about buses and bus stops, you have provided examples of where this is happening, and I experience similar issues (not everywhere) in my local area. If local authorities want to, they can push some developments to support buses, but they often don't particularly want to. This is not because they are anti-bus, but because they have other priorities ( fulfilling house building quotas with maximum houses on minimum land take) and private car transport / Uber & taxi has become the majority use over wide swathes of the country. Sadly.

 

[Ken H]

I am pointing out to you what many of your fellow citizens feel about having bus stops (and often buses running past) their new houses. You can be appalled, but it is an unfortunate fact. I don't personally ascribe to such views, although wouldn't want a bus stop outside my front door on an open plan development. There are a number of people who choose to travel on buses, but on new developments in particular this is pretty niche and often not enough to sway mainstream opinion (of residents, elected members and officials across all disciplines) into taking buses seriously, nor sufficient to provide commerciality to bus operators.

In a development near me, about 500 fairly standard upmarket houses built and occupied so far, two bus routes (one half hourly through the heart of the development and going to the Railway Station and the town Centre directly and one hourly on the periphery via another less direct route - about 40 departures per day) has roughly 50 boardings per day . About 25 of those will be schoolchildren on two specific departures. Not many making a choice then.


Yes, it is an example, but you cannot tar every Authority's staff with the same brush. And knowing the sort of vilification that can come with service cuts/withdrawals I can understand the sentiment, although it is a defeatist attitude that I would not generally subscribe to. However, if funding is not going to be available to continue services after the s106 money has run out (or services cut elsewhere in order to accommodate some kind of reduced service), it can be questioned as to the sense of creating the desire in the first place?


Got to smile with your views on my ideology (not that you have any idea) : I am just pointing out to you what barriers there are to a pro public transport ideology in society nowadays - outside of major cities most people want to make their journeys by car and don't want the price of their houses to be increased, or their taxation increased, for public transport provision that they will not use. Whether you like it or not. You may think them stupid, but LA staff (and there are a large number involved who are not directly in the transport discipline) generally reflect that mainstream view that has become the norm in society.






In some cases, where there are large developments they can ( and do, as you point out), because there is the space available and sufficient funding for facilities and services. However there any many, many more small developments (infill, or parcels of land being developed separately both in terms of developers and timespan) where this is simply an issue of the economics of packing houses in and consequently roads not really wide enough for buses and the car parking requirement / no space for bus stops away from frontages (the sort of estates that you have given some examples of in earlier posts). District Councils being Planning Authority and County Councils being Transport Authority does not help either.

As far as residents complaining about buses and bus stops, you have provided examples of where this is happening, and I experience similar issues (not everywhere) in my local area. If local authorities want to, they can push some developments to support buses, but they often don't particularly want to. This is not because they are anti-bus, but because they have other priorities ( fulfilling house building quotas with maximum houses on minimum land take) and private car transport / Uber & taxi has become the majority use over wide swathes of the country. Sadly.

Also an estate with one entrance/exit will tend not to have rat run and other antisocial behaviour. That makes bus routing harder.

 

[RT4038]

Also an estate with one entrance/exit will tend not to have rat run and other antisocial behaviour. That makes bus routing harder.

Quite. We haven't generally quite got to the walled estates of America and South Africa, but we are getting as close as.

Developers are selling people a dream. Nice quiet estate, safe for the buyer and their children. Look in the brochure / website at the artists impressions - clear streets, families, not a bus stop, or any buses in sight, [nor any of the 3rd or 4th cars and vans parking all over the place, to be fair!]. Affluence and good living, neither of which is associated by most people with travelling by bus.

 

[ChrisC]

Quite. We haven't generally quite got to the walled estates of America and South Africa, but we are getting as close as.

Developers are selling people a dream. Nice quiet estate, safe for the buyer and their children. Look in the brochure / website at the artists impressions - clear streets, families, not a bus stop, or any buses in sight, [nor any of the 3rd or 4th cars and vans parking all over the place, to be fair!]. Affluence and good living, neither of which is associated by most people with travelling by bus.

There are certainly quite a number of this type of development on the outskirts of many villages around here. Most of these are in relatively rural locations but within 10 miles of Nottingham. Usually with no more than 50-100 houses, only one entrance, but with a bus stop on the main road close by. These new develops ought to be making the existing local bus routes which pass by more viable but that isn’t happening. Just like the wealthy retired people living in the old village centres, they are not using the buses.

Back to the subject of people not wanting bus stops outside of their house, I recently came across a different slant on this. In the centre the village where I live the bus stop is on a main road near the village pub. There is a lay-by in front of the bus stop where the bus could pull in, but it is more often than not full of parked cars, resulting in the bus having to stop in the middle of the road holding up traffic. I suggested to the Parish Council that yellow paint should be marking out bus stop to stop cars parking. The reaction I got was that far more people parked there than used the bus stop and if they didn’t park there they would park in front of peoples houses instead!

 

[The Ham]

A few points of note:

Whist about 85% of e population live in urban areas (a settlement of over 10,000), there's still a fair number living in places of 5,000 - 10,000 which still justify public transport.

Often bus routes are historic and don't get reviewed. This can be an issue where places expanding on (say) one side but all the buses are focused on the historic centre of the population, but this can be quite a long way from where now a lot of people live.

It's not uncommon for buses to be extended from one area to a new build, however this can make the roites very slow to get anywhere. It also can mean that consideration isn't given to serving new locations.

Active Travel England are now a consultee for planning and so will (at least for the larger schemes) give the sort of advice that councils should do (but often don't have the staff time and/or skills to raise). Hopefully their comments will help the councils to provide similar comments going forwards.

Likewise LTN 1/20 will ensure that better routes for walking and cycling are provided, and if they're not the local councils have guidance which they can use to justify the need for developers to up their game.

Higher density could help with higher use of buses, however only so far.

Other measures are needed, for example if you can get people to accept the use of car clubs rather than car ownership, they may well then accept that they can have fewer cars in their household and then use buses a little more.

There's also a need to have public transport officers with a better understanding of bus use and be willing to accept that whilst changing routes might not be popular there could be a good case for doing so - especially if the centre of the population has shifted significantly and/or there's a new key hub location (such as a supermarket).

There's also a need for the wider population to either accept that if they want to live somewhere with his public services (including buses) there's a cost (taxes) to that (as I've said it's cheaper to live in a tent than a house, but it's harder to do - but it's hard to put a value on that) or accept that if they want cheap taxes there's a good chance that it'll cost them more to buy the services that do want to use.

As an example of everyone drives and there was no public transport or cycling then there would be more delays (more fuel costs and more time taken), find it harder to park (more time, but also likely more costs as parking space becomes more valuable).

There's a lot of people who are happy when they're taxes are reduced, however they may not be happy when the country gets to the point where services (which they directly benefit from) are cut and cut and cut again.

Ultimately, if we want to have more people using buses there needs to be more money spent on buses with it made more costly/hard to use cars (but this should be focused on areas where there's already good public transport).

 

[cactustwirly]

A few points of note:

Whist about 85% of e population live in urban areas (a settlement of over 10,000), there's still a fair number living in places of 5,000 - 10,000 which still justify public transport.

Often bus routes are historic and don't get reviewed. This can be an issue where places expanding on (say) one side but all the buses are focused on the historic centre of the population, but this can be quite a long way from where now a lot of people live.

It's not uncommon for buses to be extended from one area to a new build, however this can make the roites very slow to get anywhere. It also can mean that consideration isn't given to serving new locations.

Active Travel England are now a consultee for planning and so will (at least for the larger schemes) give the sort of advice that councils should do (but often don't have the staff time and/or skills to raise). Hopefully their comments will help the councils to provide similar comments going forwards.

Likewise LTN 1/20 will ensure that better routes for walking and cycling are provided, and if they're not the local councils have guidance which they can use to justify the need for developers to up their game.

Higher density could help with higher use of buses, however only so far.

Other measures are needed, for example if you can get people to accept the use of car clubs rather than car ownership, they may well then accept that they can have fewer cars in their household and then use buses a little more.

There's also a need to have public transport officers with a better understanding of bus use and be willing to accept that whilst changing routes might not be popular there could be a good case for doing so - especially if the centre of the population has shifted significantly and/or there's a new key hub location (such as a supermarket).

There's also a need for the wider population to either accept that if they want to live somewhere with his public services (including buses) there's a cost (taxes) to that (as I've said it's cheaper to live in a tent than a house, but it's harder to do - but it's hard to put a value on that) or accept that if they want cheap taxes there's a good chance that it'll cost them more to buy the services that do want to use.

As an example of everyone drives and there was no public transport or cycling then there would be more delays (more fuel costs and more time taken), find it harder to park (more time, but also likely more costs as parking space becomes more valuable).

There's a lot of people who are happy when they're taxes are reduced, however they may not be happy when the country gets to the point where services (which they directly benefit from) are cut and cut and cut again.

Ultimately, if we want to have more people using buses there needs to be more money spent on buses with it made more costly/hard to use cars (but this should be focused on areas where there's already good public transport).

So with a car club I will have a guaranteed car 4x times a week to drive to work at 8am, and it's available from a relatively rural location at 5pm to drive back?
How much does it cost? Who cleans the car between uses? What benefit does it bring because I will be doing the same mileage regardless of my car or a so called car club?

 

[The Ham]

So with a car club I will have a guaranteed car 4x times a week to drive to work at 8am, and it's available from a relatively rural location at 5pm to drive back?
How much does it cost? Who cleans the car between uses? What benefit does it bring because I will be doing the same mileage regardless of my car or a so called car club?

Car club cars tend to have to be returned to the same point and are charged on how long they are out of the space, so chances are using it for work isn't going to be cost effective.

Where they work is where people "need" a car for a limited time period a few times a week.

For example, a second car is justified because there's no other option to travel to (say) you child's swimming lessons and it's quite nice not to have to walk, cycle or use public transport to do the rest of your travel (even though you could).

Clearly car clubs aren't going to work for everyone, but they often do work for enough people that they in average mean that there's about 15 fewer cars owned for each one provided. That may not sound like a lot, but that's 10 (it's not as high as 14 as the car club side is dedicated so it's "full" even when it's not there) fewer cars fighting for parking space. Which in locations where it's all on street parking can be quite significant.

I suspect that there's some deliberate messing from those who benefit from high car ownership (fuel companies, car brands, etc.) that the goal of lower car use is that no one should be able to use a car. Also there's a lot of people who either believe this or at least can't see that other people may live different lives to them by asking questions about (say) car clubs where the answer would be that the thing being talked about isn't a viable option. As if because they example isn't a viable option then it isn't a viable option for anyone and we should all drive all the time.

First, that would be impossible. What's needed is a reduction in car use. A figure of 10% would be if significant benefit to a lot of people.

For example, as I highlighted in my previous post, more car ownership would actually mean higher costs for everyone. Whilst it's unlikely that lower car ownership would have such a noticeable difference (for example car parks are unlikely to reduce their charges, rather under used ones would be sold off for development, rather than over used ones putting their prices up to discourage over use), of you had a commute during term time like you had in the school holidays that's likely to give you more time and cost you less in congestion.

A reduction in car use generally means a fitter population, in that people are doing at least a little bit more exercise (most people going by bus walk further than those driving). That's likely to benefit the state through lower healthcare costs as conditions like type 2 diabetes become less prevalent.

Some even go so far as to suggest that by walking/cycling, even though it takes you longer to travel, you then don't have to go to a gym to stay healthy (there's other reasons people go to the gym, but this is for fitness reasons). Therefore, if you add up to the combined time for gym (including travel to/from the gym) and travel by car, if you're walking or cycling is broadly the same duration then actually your no worse off time wise.

With regards to buses, often the difference between buses being viable commercially and needing support is fairly close, to the point that even a small uplift in passenger numbers can make it need noticeably less support.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Car club cars tend to have to be returned to the same point and are charged on how long they are out of the space, so chances are using it for work isn't going to be cost effective.

Where they work is where people "need" a car for a limited time period a few times a week.

The most obvious use-case is doing a large supermarket shop (not everyone likes delivery because e.g. they prefer to choose their own fresh produce or their own substitutes). It has the most potential to reduce households from 2 cars to 1 than to get people to give them up entirely.

Some clubs also have vans which might be useful for DIY store trips etc and allow the main car to be smaller.

While valuable, they probably don't have that much impact on bus use, perhaps more on taxi use.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

As always, a lot from @RT4038 in his getting to the nub of things. Not least, the issues with housing development, government house building targets, the economics of house building, and the fact that section 106 funding isn't some cash cow that local authorities can milk in order to support bus services. Not least because many smaller developments simply don't have the economic case to do much more than put up a couple of raise curbs and a shelter, and because s106 funding may often have to pay for other facilities, such as a new (or funds to expand an existing) school or health centre. Where there are larger developments, there is more scope to have features to promote bus use though private car use is still the dominant transport mode.

As @RT4038 has said, local authorities are expected to reflect the needs of the population, and as there are many more car drivers than public transport users, policy will inevitably be skewed.

@The Ham has volunteered some comments; I'm not a member of a car club nor had any exposure to using one so I'll gloss over that area but I few other comments that I think are worth covering off...

There's also a need to have public transport officers with a better understanding of bus use and be willing to accept that whilst changing routes might not be popular there could be a good case for doing so - especially if the centre of the population has shifted significantly and/or there's a new key hub location (such as a supermarket).

Public transport officers aren't stupid. They have a remit to provide socially necessary services outside the commercially viable ones so that invariably means looking at existing transport flows as they are demonstrably necessary. That said, I can think of several instances where such services have been extended when a supermarket has opened etc but these officers are dealing with tight budgets; they can barely support the existing services and whilst some diversions/extensions are possible, that can only be done if it doesn't result in an on-cost.

There's also a need for the wider population to either accept that if they want to live somewhere with his public services (including buses) there's a cost (taxes) to that (as I've said it's cheaper to live in a tent than a house, but it's harder to do - but it's hard to put a value on that) or accept that if they want cheap taxes there's a good chance that it'll cost them more to buy the services that do want to use.

As an example of everyone drives and there was no public transport or cycling then there would be more delays (more fuel costs and more time taken), find it harder to park (more time, but also likely more costs as parking space becomes more valuable).

There's a lot of people who are happy when they're taxes are reduced, however they may not be happy when the country gets to the point where services (which they directly benefit from) are cut and cut and cut again.

As far as I can recall, there have been three local referenda on the subject of local tax raising (or at least spring to mind). Bristol in 2001 asked if people wanted a council tax freeze (and cut services), a modest increase to maintain services, or a larger increase to improve services. People voted for the cuts! In Croydon (about the same time), you had a similar one where there were 2%, 3.5% or 5% council tax increases to maintain or improve services. Again, the lowest figure won. Then you had the Manchester congestion charge.

Now that's 20 years ago and we've seen local government spending gutted in the last 14 years. However, do I think that people will vote (especially in the current economic climate) for tax and spend? Absolutely not, and if we did, there are crises in social care and other infrastructure that are much more pressing and electorally sensitive.

Ultimately, if we want to have more people using buses there needs to be more money spent on buses with it made more costly/hard to use cars (but this should be focused on areas where there's already good public transport).

This is the nub of it. I've mentioned it before but Copenhagen did an exercise in removing 1% of roadside parking spaces by stealth.

Imagine doing that on a major arterial road from the centre to the suburbs? A road with good public transport but the challenge will be the enforcement and those claiming it's undermining their business, their right to park outside their house, etc.

With the claims of the foil hatters about restriction of liberties, low traffic neighbourhoods etc, you can imagine the outrage...

A reduction in car use generally means a fitter population, in that people are doing at least a little bit more exercise (most people going by bus walk further than those driving). That's likely to benefit the state through lower healthcare costs as conditions like type 2 diabetes become less prevalent.

Some even go so far as to suggest that by walking/cycling, even though it takes you longer to travel, you then don't have to go to a gym to stay healthy (there's other reasons people go to the gym, but this is for fitness reasons). Therefore, if you add up to the combined time for gym (including travel to/from the gym) and travel by car, if you're walking or cycling is broadly the same duration then actually your no worse off time wise.

That's a beautiful theory but people don't act like that. I see plenty of people who go to the gym who would never walk or cycle. I used to use the gym in Longwell Green in Bristol, and I had to laugh at the majority of people who would enter and then use the escalator to go up to the gym, rather than the stairs!

Here's an example that I've posted before but now updated and it shows it even better than before. A38 Gloucester Road is an urban clearway so no parking/loading before 1000 and after 1600, so no problem? However, imagine if there was a bus lane down the left hand side.... OR



...even if you removed these two spaces so the bus had a clear run to the major junction ahead? It's not about the big things - LTNs and grandiose schemes but even just little moves may have a bigger return

 

[Meerkat]

Some places they need to buy and demolish buildings to create an offstreet car park for residents and/or local shops etc, to clear the road for buses.
The downside is the reduction in housing (unless its urban enough to build flats above or there are redundant shop/business units
Also buying a suburban house so a bus road can be knocked through into single entry/exit housing estates. Depending on the location that might not even involve unpopular compulsory purchase, just buying the next one in a row that comes up for sale.
It will of course be expensive, but if you compare to the cost of building railways etc it looks like chickenfeed.