Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,088
Just what's needed, the Transport Department to get involved. Chris Grayling shouldn't be put in charge of a stationery cupboard; it would soon become a stationary cupboard 
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
MPs launch inquiry into health of the bus market
- Thread starter Hophead
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Apologies, I think I've quoted the wrong post.
Not necessarily. having to change is already big disincentive by itself.
Having to change once is tolerable but anything more than that, can be difficult to handle for a lot of people - it introduces a lot of uncertainty as to whether they get to their destination on time or not.
Assuming majority of people who live in branches of bus routes are already car drivers. Asking them to change once every time they take a trip to the city centre is a big ask, let alone, possibly two if they want to go to a suburb in the other side of the town.
If you assume nobody is willing to change, buses can only hope to get attract passengers where direct routes exist, which in today's networks in Britain generally means you can only go to the city centre or places on the way to the city centre. It is impossible to lay on direct services from everywhere to everywhere. If you look at places outside the UK with the highest public transport mode shares you will find that many if not most people change vehicle. Even in London there are lots of people changing between buses and between buses and tubes/trains. Such public transport networks can attract people making trips all over the city, not just ones to the city centre.
To clarify, I actually believe the model seen in most bus networks in the UK connecting suburbs to city centres is better than other models with a few exceptions.
It's just that changing is an disincentive which most people tolerate. Less and less people tolerate with subsequent changes. My limit is 2 changes with rare extensions to 3 changes.
Even in London and other cities outside the UK where they adapt connectivity model rather than "all buses go to the city centre" model, people still try to keep their transport mode changes to minimum.
Not to mention the nature of bus changes, why take bus if you need to change every time you use it to go to city centre which probably forms a large portion of your leisure journeys if not commuting?
What is so good about that model? Does it lead to higher public transport patronage than other models? What if you aren't going to the city centre?
With a few exceptions, other models either cost more money or leads to lower patronage.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Given that on previous threads, you famously said that you don't read what the industry figures say as you disagree with them (classic echo chamber behaviour), I don't know how you can say that. In fact, the bus industry is very far from happy with the current situation as investment in bus services by local authorities falls with the continuing cuts in DHCLG grants continue, congestion is continually not tackled (daren't upset the car using voters) and ENCTS payments are derisory.
By the way, I thought it was established recently that there is no such thing as "subsidy" in the bus industry?
The subsidy is TfL supporting additional bus service provision - what the operator receives is a fee for services provided. As I've said before, BSOG is (IMHO) a subsidy to keeping fares down but various people seem to think ENCTS or Scholars Passes or paying businesses to operate tendered services are a subsidy to operators when they are not. However, don't wish to be bored with semantics
Indeed but Transport is your personal hobby horse. You (and indeed all on this site) are atypical. Whilst there has been an upswell in support to ending austerity through increased taxation, people don't want it to be spent on public transport, as the British Social Attitude Survey has consistently shown. It's about the NHS and schools -
- Health 75%
- Education 60%
- Housing 19%
- Help for industry 8%
- Police and prisons 8%
- Roads 7%
- Social security benefits 6%
- Public transport 5%
Two very interesting lines here
"Commercial bus services are often not heavily used anyway" - given that you famously refuse to travel on buses outside regulated London, that would be difficult to substantiate and they wouldn't be commercial anyway! Now "Other countries hardly run rural services and prefer to put their funding into urban services instead." - so are you advocating that in order to achieve modal shift, we should stop operating rural services and plough the money into urban services so you get more bang for your buck? Those in rural areas would be cut off but it's for the greater good?
Perhaps you're right. In the absence of any likelihood in increased public transport spending, concentrating funding to get more impact might be a wise move (and indeed, get rid of some of those branch lines like Newquay to Par).
They are however broadly happy with the regulatory regime and any significant improvement in funding would almost inevitably be accompanied by franchising or at least a large degree of public sector "interference".
Two very interesting lines here
Now "Other countries hardly run rural services and prefer to put their funding into urban services instead." - so are you advocating that in order to achieve modal shift, we should stop operating rural services and plough the money into urban services so you get more bang for your buck? Those in rural areas would be cut off but it's for the greater good?
Perhaps you're right. In the absence of any likelihood in increased public transport spending, concentrating funding to get more impact might be a wise move (and indeed, get rid of some of those branch lines like Newquay to Par).
"Commercial" does not necessarily imply "busy". Commercial services have been kept going by cutting costs to the bone and increasing fares, meaning that they can survive as long as enough captive passengers are forced into paying those high fares. A full bus in London may well be less "commercial" than a half full bus outside London because (bus/tram only) fares in London are so much lower. In some other countries, it is probably the case that *every* bus is loss making no matter how busy they are, because fares are too low, vehicle specification is too high and there may be other costs making buses more expensive, such as having long layovers to allow for good connections.
I wouldn't advocate "cutting off" rural areas but there has always been more concern about rural bus services in Britain compared to urban services, as it has always been assumed urban areas are "OK" as they have always had some kind of service, albeit far from optimal. Even if you spent a vast amount on rural services you wouldn't get that much modal shift, whereas a gold plated urban network with metros/trams/BRT and high quality connecting bus services would get a decent amount of people out of their cars.
Most of our cities don't have any alternative destination with particularly high demand though. London has numerous smaller centres people want to reach for work/shopping/connections to tube/national rail services to central London. Manchester for example maybe has the Trafford Centre and a couple of places you might want to catch the tram (But don't unless you have an ENCTS pass) . Leeds' urban area doesn't really have a big alternative destination and no stations worth connecting at.
InterCity:125
Member
Cupboards are stationary; if he was put in charge it would quickly be a cancelled cupboard.Just what's needed, the Transport Department to get involved. Chris Grayling shouldn't be put in charge of a stationery cupboard; it would soon become a stationary cupboard
In London you can reach most places quite easily by a combination of tube, train and bus. Not just "centres" but more or less anywhere. Friends and family live all over the place, not just in a few select locations. Business locations are not always in those centres either. In Manchester or Leeds you might also want to visit friends and family in another part of the city without having to go in and out of the city centre on slow buses.
You won't be joined on that journey between two random estates via nowhere in particular by many people though - London doesn't provide routes like that. It would be good to have such links, but are they really wanted badly enough to justify making journeys much longer and more difficult on the dominant flow to the city centre?
You wouldn't have routes between random estates, the network would be a mixture of radial and non-radial routes mostly following main roads. That's what you get in London and in a typical European city. As I explained earlier with my Zurich example, it might actually mean fewer routes required compared to the typical British network. See the ZVV website to see a route plan if you are interested in seeing the general principle. By combination of one radial and one non-radial route you should be able to reach most areas of the city without going through the city centre, unless the city centre happens to be in the right direction. If the city has a good urban rail network then it may be better to use that for most of the trip even if it means going through the city centre as it would be quicker.
Last edited:
How very unsurprising. A thread about bus provision and the bus industry in the UK has been turned into "why buses are better abroad". Again.
The biggest problem with doing so is, rather like the Christmas thread, the comments fail to take into account the fundamental aspects of society and how that works, and the fact that public transport by nature works towards that. Taking the areas of Germany I know well, most areas are focussed very heavily on their nearest town, and as a result it is perfectly possible for the service to be largely urban - even some smaller towns will have their own "city bus" service - take a look at the maps of the HVV Verkehrsverbund in the Hamburg area, for example. As a result, there is little call for travel outside of the immediate metropolitan area. It is quite possible to be born in greater Stuttgart, go to school and University in greater Stuttgart and then get a job in greater Stuttgart.
As for not serving estates and radial routes, I draw your attention to this city of 79,000 (so about Harlow/Bracknell sized) inhabitants: https://www.stadtwerke-neumuenster....laene_aktuelles/SWN_Bus_Netzplan_20171210.pdf Unless I am very much mistaken, that seems to consist entirely of routes around estates heading to the town centre. Nothing radial, nothing connecting. Aside from the fact it is run by the municipality, very British, I'd say. They even make their changes on a different day to the rest of the State, just to be awkward!
The UK, by contrast, tends to have a much greater focus on multiple urban areas, rather than just the one: one non-bus user I know regularly cites, in addition to fares, the obligation to travel to the local town centre... a place most locals try to avoid if they can! A whole swathe of suburbia relies on inter-urban routes to provide their local services, at least part of which is down to ENCTS reimbursement. Services are much more widespread, with the complete selection of schools, hospitals and other amenities rarely available in the urban area, requiring travel outside. Some students travel many hundreds of miles away for University, then many hundred more to work - they may not return to their home except to make the occasional visit to their parents.
Blithely quoting how wonderful the network is in "Europe" (usually referring to a select few cities with good practice and failing to comment on those where it is rather less good - the "London problem") without paying attention to cultural facts is not helpful. If it works so well, why has no British city been persuaded to try it out? I find it hard to believe that no innovative operator would turn down such a winning scheme... or do they perhaps know their market better than you think?
As was posted some way above, some of the biggest factors affecting the UK industry are fares (or the perception thereof), perception (of the vehicles and the industry - the 30 year old trains, 5 year old bus, 2 year old car issue), roadworks and (increasing) red tape. THAT is where attention should be focussed - not some European nirvana.
The biggest problem with doing so is, rather like the Christmas thread, the comments fail to take into account the fundamental aspects of society and how that works, and the fact that public transport by nature works towards that. Taking the areas of Germany I know well, most areas are focussed very heavily on their nearest town, and as a result it is perfectly possible for the service to be largely urban - even some smaller towns will have their own "city bus" service - take a look at the maps of the HVV Verkehrsverbund in the Hamburg area, for example. As a result, there is little call for travel outside of the immediate metropolitan area. It is quite possible to be born in greater Stuttgart, go to school and University in greater Stuttgart and then get a job in greater Stuttgart.
As for not serving estates and radial routes, I draw your attention to this city of 79,000 (so about Harlow/Bracknell sized) inhabitants: https://www.stadtwerke-neumuenster....laene_aktuelles/SWN_Bus_Netzplan_20171210.pdf Unless I am very much mistaken, that seems to consist entirely of routes around estates heading to the town centre. Nothing radial, nothing connecting. Aside from the fact it is run by the municipality, very British, I'd say. They even make their changes on a different day to the rest of the State, just to be awkward!
The UK, by contrast, tends to have a much greater focus on multiple urban areas, rather than just the one: one non-bus user I know regularly cites, in addition to fares, the obligation to travel to the local town centre... a place most locals try to avoid if they can! A whole swathe of suburbia relies on inter-urban routes to provide their local services, at least part of which is down to ENCTS reimbursement. Services are much more widespread, with the complete selection of schools, hospitals and other amenities rarely available in the urban area, requiring travel outside. Some students travel many hundreds of miles away for University, then many hundred more to work - they may not return to their home except to make the occasional visit to their parents.
Blithely quoting how wonderful the network is in "Europe" (usually referring to a select few cities with good practice and failing to comment on those where it is rather less good - the "London problem") without paying attention to cultural facts is not helpful. If it works so well, why has no British city been persuaded to try it out? I find it hard to believe that no innovative operator would turn down such a winning scheme... or do they perhaps know their market better than you think?
As was posted some way above, some of the biggest factors affecting the UK industry are fares (or the perception thereof), perception (of the vehicles and the industry - the 30 year old trains, 5 year old bus, 2 year old car issue), roadworks and (increasing) red tape. THAT is where attention should be focussed - not some European nirvana.
You would be hard pushed to find anywhere even in Switzerland that has non-radial routes in a place that small. Smaller cities generally rely on connections between routes at the railway station.
Why worry about something less good when something really good exists? For example, if you look at https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/, David Hembrow always makes it clear that whilst the Netherlands is the best country in the world for cycling, you need to copy the *best* cycling practice from the Netherlands, not just anything that happens to be Dutch.
Bletchleyite answered this very well some time ago, but essentially he said that the British bus industry is very conservative (with a small 'c').
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Again I put it to you - "How the fluff would you know?" - You actively avoid the views of bus industry managers (sat in your echo chamber), let alone seek to find out what they are. They aren't happy with the current regime of paltry ENCTS payments and a view of some CAZs/LEZs whereby bus operators are expected to maintain higher standards than the general public.
What you are saying is without any evidence or merit - in fact, it is incorrect. Just because bus company managers don't want masses of bureaucracy or the dead hand of central control stifling any ability to innovate or manage, doesn't mean they're happy with the current situation. Perhaps if you actually bothered to get a rounded view, it might add some gravitas to your argument.
So if you're not advocating that, it seems a strange comment. Given the lack of money, and the seeming lack of interest in additional taxation to pay for the type of system you advocate, where's the money coming from?
Duncombe has you absolutely dialled on this - once again, you have hijacked a thread to say "it's all great in Europe". It isn't and this isn't the thread anyway.
As it is, I have no doubt that the MPs will doubtless (for their differing reasons) put the blame on the operators. Not the stupid, unresourced ENCTS scheme (where you can have nearly full buses that aren't then commercial); not the inability to provide bus priorities of sufficiently robust and beneficial design/extent; not the reduction of BSOG that (with the skewing of ENCTS) has pushed one off fares up markedly; not the depression of the high street by poor planning decisions in the past allied to onerous rents.
No, it'll be none of that
First of all you claim that bus companies want more funding. But if you then say "where's the money coming from", that sounds to me as if you don't actually want a properly funded system, and so you can therefore justify the current low cost regime with its associated freedom for the industry which enables you to jettison any scenarios that require a decent amount of money spent which may be uncomfortable from a regulatory point of view.
I don't think bus companies want more 'funding', as in handouts, they want an operating and financial structure that enables them to earn a (more or less) honest profit from their endeavours. As to do this would likely mean Government reducing its tax take and paying a fair amount for the free travel it has awarded pensioners / costs of carrying disabled passengers / costs of emission restrictions / costs of red tape etc, I see no contradiction in Grand Wazoo also asking 'where's the money coming from?'
But I thought there is "no money", so even grievances such as reduction in BSOG and underfunding of ENCTS cannot be addressed. Would TGW or the industry be satisfied even if we went back to 1990 levels of Fuel Duty Rebate (obviously converted to 2018 prices) and ENCTS was abolished? They should be, as they would still enjoy the full freedom of deregulation. Maintaining the existing regulatory framework is of paramount importance.
Last edited:
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
No - you are quite wrong.
Bus companies DO want more investment - they want a decent return for ENCTS (the no better no worse off line rings very hollow now). As RT4038 states, the industry doesn't want handouts - it wants genuine assistance in having better bus priority, Kickstart schemes that allow pump priming of routes and the ability to grow and develop their businesses without being hamstrung with unfair conditions (like the Leeds CAZ that will charge Buses but not Cars).
However, you continually deliberately misrepresent me. Look at what I said:
Put it bluntly, you are living in some sort of alternative world; one where you are seemingly unable or unwilling to accept the situation as it is in the UK. Yes, it would be lovely to aspire to something approaching Zurich but given the downward pressures on London's expenditure, it really isn't likely.
The majority of the postings in this thread have been concerned with bus services in London and other major urban areas. This is understandable because that’s where the bulk of the population live. However this inquiry also refers to ‘The provision of services to isolated communities in rural and urban areas’.
Buses are never going to be able to serve many of the really isolated villages with populations of just a few hundred people, apart from perhaps with just a weekly service to the local town on market day. However, over recent years many of the major cuts have been on routes serving larger villages with populations between 2,000 and 5,000 which now perhaps have no more than 2 or 3 buses a day at best. Many of our smaller market towns with populations between 5,000 and 10,000 have also seen drastic cuts with no buses after 6pm, no buses on Sundays and afternoon services cut whilst the buses go off on school runs. Unfortunately this situation is now beginning to spread to larger towns of up to 30,000 people in rural counties away from the large urban centres. Shrewsbury being a good example.
There are many locations out in the shire counties where 2 large towns with populations of up to 30,000 people, which may be only few miles apart, have no evening or Sunday services running between them.
Evening services outside the major cities are probably never going to be commercially viable, but does cutting all buses after 6pm then reduce the profitability of buses earlier in the day. I very rarely use the bus service through my village these days since the service has been reduced. We are fortunate, for a relatively small village, to still basically have an hourly service from 7am until 6pm. The problem is when there is no bus back to the village from town after 6pm then people travel by car and don’t use an outward bus earlier in the day. I think passenger numbers on afternoon buses into town have really dropped because people do not travel out if you can’t get back. The fact for me that the 3.30 pm bus goes off on a school run means that I don’t tend to use the bus to travel into town in the morning because the bus is missing at just the time I will want to come back.
I think another problem that makes bus travel unattractive outside the large urban areas is the high cost of fares if you do have to use 2 buses with different operators to complete a journey. If I was to travel by bus to a town only 5 miles away from where I live which means using 2 buses it would cost £2.30 on the first bus and £3 on the second and that’s only one way! £10.60 to do a return journeynto a town only 5 miles away and then people in London complain about their high fares!
Buses are never going to be able to serve many of the really isolated villages with populations of just a few hundred people, apart from perhaps with just a weekly service to the local town on market day. However, over recent years many of the major cuts have been on routes serving larger villages with populations between 2,000 and 5,000 which now perhaps have no more than 2 or 3 buses a day at best. Many of our smaller market towns with populations between 5,000 and 10,000 have also seen drastic cuts with no buses after 6pm, no buses on Sundays and afternoon services cut whilst the buses go off on school runs. Unfortunately this situation is now beginning to spread to larger towns of up to 30,000 people in rural counties away from the large urban centres. Shrewsbury being a good example.
There are many locations out in the shire counties where 2 large towns with populations of up to 30,000 people, which may be only few miles apart, have no evening or Sunday services running between them.
Evening services outside the major cities are probably never going to be commercially viable, but does cutting all buses after 6pm then reduce the profitability of buses earlier in the day. I very rarely use the bus service through my village these days since the service has been reduced. We are fortunate, for a relatively small village, to still basically have an hourly service from 7am until 6pm. The problem is when there is no bus back to the village from town after 6pm then people travel by car and don’t use an outward bus earlier in the day. I think passenger numbers on afternoon buses into town have really dropped because people do not travel out if you can’t get back. The fact for me that the 3.30 pm bus goes off on a school run means that I don’t tend to use the bus to travel into town in the morning because the bus is missing at just the time I will want to come back.
I think another problem that makes bus travel unattractive outside the large urban areas is the high cost of fares if you do have to use 2 buses with different operators to complete a journey. If I was to travel by bus to a town only 5 miles away from where I live which means using 2 buses it would cost £2.30 on the first bus and £3 on the second and that’s only one way! £10.60 to do a return journeynto a town only 5 miles away and then people in London complain about their high fares!
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Bus companies are well aware of the challenge of this. That's why there are a lot of instances where operators have taken a holistic decision to maintain services commercially - journeys that are not commercially self sufficient but don't lose that much so they take the decision to run them. There is a tipping point where evening or Sunday loadings are so low that even losing a few daytime passengers just doesn't justify haemorrhaging cash of an evening.
These are the very discussions that operators have when LA support is withdrawn.
As for multi-journey, multi-operator travel, it is a constant issue. There are some really good schemes around the country and, in Bristol, you can get a day ticket for £4 on First's mticket app or pay £4.50 for any operator, or £17.00/£20.00 respectively for the week option. This was enabled by Travelwest and WEBOA.
Of course, head south into Somerset and there's nothing and you have the issues of border areas where people dip out.
You don't normally say that there is a specific size of town in your examples, just that non-radial routes are part of the grand panacea that is "Europe". So I'll give you a few more examples.
This city of 215,000 inhabitants (approx. size of Northampton, and indeed the second largest urban area in the State) also appears to have end-to-end routes with no (*) non-radial services, in true English style: https://www.sv-luebeck.de/de/docman...tz/214-liniennetz-ab-dem-11-12-2016/file.html.
Or this town, of 87,000 inhabitants, ditto: http://www.mobizentrale.de/bus/fahr...2017-11-02--Aktiv_Bus_Liniennetzplan_2018.pdf, which focuses routes on the town centre (and doesn't even show the railway lines).
And for good measure, how about this town of 24,000, which fits into your "connections at railway station" example: https://www.vsf-gmbh.com/fileadmin/daten/pdf/Fahrplandaten/VGSF700/Liniennetzplan_Schleswig.pdf. Believe me, it is a LONG walk between the railway station and the bus station.
These are all towns which are of a suitable size for the government review - indeed, Lübeck is half the size of Zurich, so arguably too large... but also too small for your preferred policy of circumferential routes?
Because, simply, put, it is impossible for everywhere to have best practice. You are insistent on comparing the whole spectrum of variables in the UK with a highly selective number of examples from "Europe" to prove how everything in Europe is better. As my examples, and those of others have proved, that is simply not the case, and in fact quite disingenuous. To use the infamous supermarket analogy, you are essentially suggesting Tesco and Sainsburys shouldn't be allowed, because they are not examples of the best practice you might find at M&S or Waitrose.
Or perhaps they just have a better idea of what works in their situation?
(*) There is one non-radial route in Lübeck, service 8. The only unique sections of route it serves are two industrial estates, at a random "frequency", presumably to suit shift patterns. Any "normal" customer would use the vastly more frequent alternative services available. Unless, of course, industrial estate spotting is a new variation on the hobby.
EDIT: correcting my radius/circumference confusion
Last edited:
In thinking about this thread, I wondered whether a lot of the problem surrounding bus services and their funding lies in the perception of the public as to how they run. As "public transport", we tend to bracket them with trains and trams, which I would broadly describe as public services operated by a private company, whereas the UK bus model tends towards planes, which are a private company offering a service the public can travel on (I'm obviously discounting 'island hopping' services in Scotland or Scilly-Cornwall in this).
All too often we read stories in the newspapers from 'helpful' journalists, let alone letters from readers, where the basic facts are wrong. There is the assumption there is a 'contract' that can be 'taken away'. There is the suggestion that there is some sort of right to have a bus service, in the same way as a village shop or doctor's surgery. And all too often, buses are seen as part of the problem, rather than the solution, and anti-car polices almost invariably have a knock-on effect on buses.
I think this is something the industry is actually quite bad at putting across (although arguably they shouldn't have to). Even when given some sort of opportunity, such as when withdrawing services that are not commercially viable, most notices say use those sort of 'corporate' terms that don't really mean anything to the travelling public. I don't think I have yet seen a notice that states the facts, in black and white. Granted "we only receive x pence for concessionary pass holders, and carry z passengers a day, which you will understand is not enough to pay for a driver and vehicle" would not be popular, but it may help in the public's understanding of the situation.
As a result, when it comes to service reductions, withdrawals or fare increases, the companies are only seen as being part of the "greedy corporate elite", only in it for themselves and their shareholders (even if it is a century old, family-run business) rather than a company being asked to provide a service for which is is poorly recompensed. I should stop using supermarket analogies, but we are asking for M&S to be delivered whilst only paying ASDA Smartprice prices, because we are too focused on the Fortnum & Masons of the railways!
All too often we read stories in the newspapers from 'helpful' journalists, let alone letters from readers, where the basic facts are wrong. There is the assumption there is a 'contract' that can be 'taken away'. There is the suggestion that there is some sort of right to have a bus service, in the same way as a village shop or doctor's surgery. And all too often, buses are seen as part of the problem, rather than the solution, and anti-car polices almost invariably have a knock-on effect on buses.
I think this is something the industry is actually quite bad at putting across (although arguably they shouldn't have to). Even when given some sort of opportunity, such as when withdrawing services that are not commercially viable, most notices say use those sort of 'corporate' terms that don't really mean anything to the travelling public. I don't think I have yet seen a notice that states the facts, in black and white. Granted "we only receive x pence for concessionary pass holders, and carry z passengers a day, which you will understand is not enough to pay for a driver and vehicle" would not be popular, but it may help in the public's understanding of the situation.
As a result, when it comes to service reductions, withdrawals or fare increases, the companies are only seen as being part of the "greedy corporate elite", only in it for themselves and their shareholders (even if it is a century old, family-run business) rather than a company being asked to provide a service for which is is poorly recompensed. I should stop using supermarket analogies, but we are asking for M&S to be delivered whilst only paying ASDA Smartprice prices, because we are too focused on the Fortnum & Masons of the railways!
"Radial" usually means "radiating from the centre", so most bus routes are radial routes. I'm pretty sure I have mentioned town size before as a requirement. I realise I don't explain things particularly well so I would recommend reading "Transport for Suburbia" by Paul Mees (recommended reading for some MSc courses) where he very eloquently compares and describes network design in various locations around the world. It is a while since I have read it but I do remember him using the example of Schaffhausen which is too small to have anything other than a radial network but because of timed connections at the railway station they still benefit from the network effect.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
So much I can agree with on that post, and indeed, the criticism of bus companies. Don't say "matching resources to travelling patterns" - just say that not enough passengers travel and that getting 35% of a single fare is the reason. I guess they perhaps don't wish to embarrass local councils (though that's not an issue in Hartlepool or Darlington).
As an aside, I wonder if they proposed withdrawing the bus from Liskeard to Looe, what the response would be.....in comparison to removing the railway line. I imagine the former would be accepted with a doleful shrug, the latter howls of protest etc. Buses are just not loved in the same way as trains despite their role in getting people around!
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Mixing my circumferences with my radii (). But no comment on the examples?
No - instead the onus is on you to look up some theoretical tome.
I might add that Bristol that has enjoyed a surge in bus ridership is about to lose one of its peripheral services (i.e. non radial) when the Southmead Hospital to Emersons Green service stops on Rotala's exit. The council (South Gloucestershire) can't justify its retention for the very low ridership especially during the day.
Another interesting example not far from there is the Thornbury to Bristol service that First have now enhanced using some of the bus priority measures that metrobus has brought; it affords much faster travel times and that is the type of investment that can benefit operators!
Mixing my circumferences with my radii (
What is there to say? You've found examples of moderately sized German towns that don't have non-radial routes. You are right and I am wrong. I could throw in the example of Utrecht which has about half a million in its urban area. The bus network is essentially radial there too. If I wanted to look for an excuse, I could say that many of the major corridors are BRT standard or tram so going through the city centre isn't that bad. But the major difference in the Netherlands is that the bike is used for almost all local trips that would be taken by bus in other countries so non-radial trips are essentially already catered for. What counts is the total bus/bike/tram/metro modal share. In smaller towns I would argue it makes a lot more sense to improve bike infrastructure rather than improve bus services as the bike will almost certainly be quicker than the bus for almost all trips in a small town, and now that e-bikes are available, hills are no longer an issue.
Last edited:
- Status