Transport for Strathclyde – A New Public Transport Network

[johncrossley]

You're suggesting that people are likely to get the bus "all the way" rather than a multi-modal journey and that's how competition takes place? If so, that's just not true. On short journeys, the b*ggeration factor of changing is a disincentive. On longer journeys, the direct bus journey just can't compete on time. And that's the point....buses can't and don't compete.

We have seen countless times that rail reopenings or tram schemes (not a bad thing) are often accompanied by a resultant cut in bus services.

I gave three possible scenarios. In two out of the three options part or all of the journey is made by car which clearly is undesirable if there is a potentially good bus and train connection. I realise this part of the forum is going to be biased towards buses, but making connections attractive means more chance of the bus being used for at least some of the trip.

Connections between buses and trains happen a lot more in conurbations the size of Greater Glasgow in other countries so it is clearly possible. Glasgow is lucky in having such a comprehensive rail network so there is great potential for combined bus and train trips.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I gave three possible scenarios. In two out of the three options part or all of the journey is made by car which clearly is undesirable if there is a potentially good bus and train connection. I realise this part of the forum is going to be biased towards buses, but making connections attractive means more chance of the bus being used for at least some of the trip.

Connections between buses and trains happen a lot more in conurbations the size of Greater Glasgow in other countries so it is clearly possible. Glasgow is lucky in having such a comprehensive rail network so there is great potential for combined bus and train trips.

The comment that you originally responded to was my response in relation to the point "To me this still misses the point because it ignores Strathclyde's extensive local rail network and persists in trying to compete, not integrate, with it." and my assertion that buses are rarely in a position to compete with trains.

Now if you're talking about improved integration, that's all well and good. However, there's a reason why places like Cumbernauld and East Kilbride still have direct bus services to Glasgow city centre and why other places don't. Look at the map and you'll see.

 

[Journeyman]

The big difference between buses and trains, at least where they run alongside each other, is that most rail passengers pay their own fares, and most bus passengers don't. That seems to be one of the biggest determining factors in modal choice.

 

[route101]

Would love to see tickets that allow bus and train for Glasgow. There is but it covers a far wider area and cant go through barriers . I often take bus into town and train it back. Or decide to get train and bus if im out.

 

[Stan Drews]

Would love to see tickets that allow bus and train for Glasgow. There is but it covers a far wider area and cant go through barriers . I often take bus into town and train it back. Or decide to get train and bus if im out.

I think operators have been trying to persuade SPT to bring the Zonecard into the 21st Century for a while now, but it’s only 2021, so plenty of time for them yet!!

 

[awsnews]

I think operators have been trying to persuade SPT to bring the Zonecard into the 21st Century for a while now, but it’s only 2021, so plenty of time for them yet!!

SPT (Strathclyde Partnership for Transport) did issue a Prior Information Notice at the end of last year for a supplier for an ITSO (Doesn't appear to be a FLA (four letter acronym) but the name of the standards body)compliant Zonecard ticket. Seems a strange notice to be issues given the fact that SPT have a shareholding in Nevis Technologies who provide smart ticketing solutions to a number of operators already. In the past there has been mention of a bus only product but it has never come to fruition although its USP (unique selling point) has always been the multi modal aspect across train/bus/subway/ferry and given the growth in operator specific offerings I suspect that avenue would now be pointless anyway.

For the umpteenth time, buses do not compete with rail. Look at the expansion and improvements with rail services and see how it mirrors the decline of bus services.

The issue in Glasgow has been the headlong rush to improve links for car drivers - see the amount of motorway building in the last 30-40 years.

At least there are some demonstrable targets in improving patronage, improving journey times etc. Rather than the Manchester way of vague wiffle and jam tomorrow.

Whilst there may have been some improvements for car drivers traffic flow in the city centre itself has been pushed into a few key corridors which, not surprisingly, are now severely congested. Whilst in some parts of the city competing with rail would be pointless the railway is becoming a victim of it's own success. Growth on the North Clyde lines has been considerable but the network just cannot manage any more, the trains can't get any longer on the lines serving the north west areas and there is the bottleneck of Hyndland to Partick which limits the ability to increase frequencies, unless someone decides to demolish quite a sizable area around the current Partick Station. Consequently alternative ways of introducing capacity are going to be required, and buses could well be the quick win solution. Improving journey times looks good on paper but without the infrastructure spend, and several schemes which could have helped, such as Fastlink being extended out as far as Yoker, have been allowed to fade away over the past few years and that just makes the task harder to achieve now.

 

[tbtc]

The big difference between buses and trains, at least where they run alongside each other, is that most rail passengers pay their own fares, and most bus passengers don't. That seems to be one of the biggest determining factors in modal choice.

I take your point (given the amount of pensioners on buses and the non-pensioners who qualify for free travel too), but you could also argue that part of the problem is that adult bus passengers are having to pay the true cost of their journeys (on commercials services) whilst train passengers are benefitting from heavily subsidised "PTE" fares

It costs me almost a fiver to travel a couple of miles on the bus into the city I live in and back again.

Looking at standard tickets for tomorrow, the following returns are available by train (no railcards/ no advanced purchases, just the regular "walk up" adult fares):

• £3.80 Clydebank - Glasgow - Clydebank
• £3.80 Drumchapel - Glasgow - Drumchapel
• £4.00 Milngavie - Glasgow - Milngavie
• £4.10 Paisley - Glasgow - Paisley
• £4.30 Coatbridge - Glasgow - Coatbridge
• £4.90 Hamilton - Glasgow - Hamilton
• £5.00 Airdrie - Glasgow - Airdrie
• £5.10 Motherwell - Glasgow - Motherwell
• £5.50 Dumbarton - Glasgow - Dumbarton

That's the equivalent of £1.90 to £2.75 single fare - how far can you get out of central Glasgow on a commercial bus service for that single fare? If we subsidised adult bus fares to the same level that we subsidise adult train fares, we'd get a lot more people off the roads.

I'm all for subsidising trains, I'm just suggesting that we'd have a transformational effect if commercial bus services had the same kind of largesse. Sadly, the people who control the purse strings seem to think that buses only exist to serve train stations.

(obviously cheaper fares are possible if you buy a week's worth in advance, but that's a lot of commitment that only applies to those who have predictable demands over the week - e.g. needing to travel into the city centre at least five days a week - and have the £15-£20 up front - whereas the train fares are that cheap for one-off passengers)

there's a reason why places like Cumbernauld and East Kilbride still have direct bus services to Glasgow city centre and why other places don't. Look at the map and you'll see.

Agreed. How is a commercial bus service from Airdrie/ Coatbridge into Glasgow going to compete with the cheap train tickets? The only way to maintain a bus service into Glasgow is where there's some significant intermediate place with no train service

 

[NorthOxonian]

I take your point (given the amount of pensioners on buses and the non-pensioners who qualify for free travel too), but you could also argue that part of the problem is that adult bus passengers are having to pay the true cost of their journeys (on commercials services) whilst train passengers are benefitting from heavily subsidised "PTE" fares

It costs me almost a fiver to travel a couple of miles on the bus into the city I live in and back again.

Looking at standard tickets for tomorrow, the following returns are available by train (no railcards/ no advanced purchases, just the regular "walk up" adult fares):

• £3.80 Clydebank - Glasgow - Clydebank
• £3.80 Drumchapel - Glasgow - Drumchapel
• £4.00 Milngavie - Glasgow - Milngavie
• £4.10 Paisley - Glasgow - Paisley
• £4.30 Coatbridge - Glasgow - Coatbridge
• £4.90 Hamilton - Glasgow - Hamilton
• £5.00 Airdrie - Glasgow - Airdrie
• £5.10 Motherwell - Glasgow - Motherwell
• £5.50 Dumbarton - Glasgow - Dumbarton

That's the equivalent of £1.90 to £2.75 single fare - how far can you get out of central Glasgow on a commercial bus service for that single fare? If we subsidised adult bus fares to the same level that we subsidise adult train fares, we'd get a lot more people off the roads.

I'm all for subsidising trains, I'm just suggesting that we'd have a transformational effect if commercial bus services had the same kind of largesse. Sadly, the people who control the purse strings seem to think that buses only exist to serve train stations.

(obviously cheaper fares are possible if you buy a week's worth in advance, but that's a lot of commitment that only applies to those who have predictable demands over the week - e.g. needing to travel into the city centre at least five days a week - and have the £15-£20 up front - whereas the train fares are that cheap for one-off passengers)



Agreed. How is a commercial bus service from Airdrie/ Coatbridge into Glasgow going to compete with the cheap train tickets? The only way to maintain a bus service into Glasgow is where there's some significant intermediate place with no train service

I don't think those train fares are unreasonably low. Don't forget that, in the main, the towns surrounding Glasgow are not affluent and local residents don't tend to be well off - so fares will tend to be lower than in more affluent areas anyway.

Just to give examples of journeys which are of comparable length elsewhere in the country - an off peak day return from Newcastle to Sunderland is £3.70, from Cardiff to Barry £3.90, and from Liverpool to Meols Cop (just beyond Southport) is £5.50. I've deliberately picked urban areas which aren't especially affluent as I think that gives a fairer comparison (though Southport is fairly well off so that particular choice might not be perfect).

In general, buses can't compete with trains on fares, at least not on these relatively short distances. They have to focus on frequency and convenience - they stop more, they penetrate estates more effectively. As an example, the X24 between Sunderland and Newcastle is more expensive than the train or metro, but is well used because it connects the west end of Sunderland to Newcastle (avoiding the need to travel into the centre and out again). That's how you compete - and there do seem to be routes which do this quite effectively (the 18 in East Kilbride for example - I expect Calderwood residents will choose that bus over travelling to the station and then a train).

 

[PaulMc7]

For me personally, I've always got the bus over the train due to the journeys I make. I was comparing the price between buses and trains and the train can be better if you're just out for the day but ultimately it's cheaper for the bus over a monthly period.

For example, the express bus and trains I can get take very similar amounts of time into Glasgow City Centre but with First the monthly direct debit for a City zone ticket is £22 cheaper than the train.

When I started looking at cross city journeys the bus always won for price by a fair amount but obviously the train is quicker.

The train use will always be preferable because of 2 things:

1) There's still a stigma around bus use and some people don't want to be seen using them.

2) People who can comfortably afford the train will use it because it's quicker.

Covid probably won't have helped either because there's generally a lot more space on a train compared to the bus. Unless bus journey times practically half in journey time required then it'll be tough to make them far more desirable.

 

[Scotrail314209]

When I was commuting from Ayrshire into college in Glasgow, I actually took the bus in as it was much cheaper than the train. The bus does have the edge in peak times, sure it's a bit slower but in some places you can save a bit of coin.

 

[markymark2000]

If we subsidised adult bus fares to the same level that we subsidise adult train fares, we'd get a lot more people off the roads.

Or we stop giving away as much free travel and start subsidising concessionary fares properly (rather than this silly, no better or worse off thing which doesn't actually work) so then bus operators aren't constantly playing a game against an algorithm to get decent concessionary reimbursement.

The tweet got removed relatively quickly but I'm sure Ralph Roberts said a while back on Twitter than if concessionary reimbursement was at 100%, McGills could offer a flat fare of under £2 on all routes (it was a figure between £1.20 and £1.70 but I can't remember fully so I am opting for under £2 incase someone can find the old tweet). When bus operators fares are based on playing against an reimbursement algorithm, it will always mean that fare payers are paying much more than needed to counteract the money lost through the 'no better or worse off' concessionary passes.

 

[JumpinTrainz]

Am I right in saying their vision is to have just one big network for Glasgow? So no First, Stagecoach, McGills?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Am I right in saying their vision is to have just one big network for Glasgow? So no First, Stagecoach, McGills?

No. It’s a better network operated by the current firms in the main. The cover says it a bus operator alliance, page 3 tells you which firms are involved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or we stop giving away as much free travel and start subsidising concessionary fares properly (rather than this silly, no better or worse off thing which doesn't actually work) so then bus operators aren't constantly playing a game against an algorithm to get decent concessionary reimbursement.

The tweet got removed relatively quickly but I'm sure Ralph Roberts said a while back on Twitter than if concessionary reimbursement was at 100%, McGills could offer a flat fare of under £2 on all routes (it was a figure between £1.20 and £1.70 but I can't remember fully so I am opting for under £2 incase someone can find the old tweet). When bus operators fares are based on playing against an reimbursement algorithm, it will always mean that fare payers are paying much more than needed to counteract the money lost through the 'no better or worse off' concessionary passes.

But concessionary fares at 100% would be considerably overpaying, as most regulars do not pay cash singles, rather they get season tickets at a very substantial discount.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The only way to maintain a bus service into Glasgow is where there's some significant intermediate place with no train service

Exactly my point. The reason why Cumbernauld or East Kilbride are able to have direct services is because the rail station in those towns is in such as peripheral location. Were they to be in a central location, then it would be similar to Hamilton.

Unless bus journey times practically half in journey time required then it'll be tough to make them far more desirable.

This is something that the document does refer to. Improvements to bus priority will provide so many improvements - yes, the journeys will be quicker (so removing some of the advantage of the private car), but also bus services will be more reliable so they turn up when the passenger expects them to. There is also the ability to increase frequencies with the same resources, making buses more attractive.

In Glasgow, the car centric policies of the last 40 years have really served public transport poorly.

For me personally, I've always got the bus over the train due to the journeys I make

That's the point. Buses and trains are often filling in particular roles, with buses providing those that trains are unable to provide.

 

[Stan Drews]

This is something that the document does refer to. Improvements to bus priority will provide so many improvements - yes, the journeys will be quicker (so removing some of the advantage of the private car), but also bus services will be more reliable so they turn up when the passenger expects them to. There is also the ability to increase frequencies with the same resources, making buses more attractive.

In Glasgow, the car centric policies of the last 40 years have really served public transport poorly.

That's the point. Buses and trains are often filling in particular roles, with buses providing those that trains are unable to provide.

Yes, this is one of the main points that bus operators understand very well, but is often completely lost on the politicians. If reliable journey time savings could be made on all the main arterial routes, that could save quite a number of buses, without any loss of frequency or capacity. The operators are suggesting, in their document, that the resources saved in this way could be utilised to provide new services, or improve others, without recourse to the public purse. Effectively the new or improved services could be resourced on a cost neutral basis, meaning any additional revenue gained would be straight on the bottom line.
I know in Manchester, Stagecoach have previously made the point about how many additional buses they’ve added over the years, to routes across the city, simply to maintain the same frequencies.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It will be impossible to produce a business case for the Glasgow Metro without proper bus integration. You can't continue to have buses from all over the Strathclyde region come into the centre of Glasgow if there will be street running trams on the core cross-city routes. Preserving the bus network could only be done if the Metro had extremely expensive underground tunnels in the city centre, which is unlikely when street running capability is almost guaranteed for ease of extension into lower-density suburbs.

Encouraging bus passengers to interchange onto the Metro is also a great way of boosting passenger numbers on the Metro from day one. With fewer buses, the Metro can then run faster, reducing journey times again. Heavy rail services can do the same.

What this seems to be is the private bus operators shifting into acceptance of a franchising model like in London. There will still be plenty of work for all of the companies, taking on bus route contracts from SPT or its successor.

 

[overthewater]

Now to be fair, The motorway system around Glasgow was going to get built no matter what, lets not forget how bad the old A77 was and how clogged up the south side was with traffic heading to Ayr. Stagecoach Glasgow did rather well out of the Motorway system with the likes of X8-X10. First's Busiest service No1 uses the Cyldeside Expressway. It can be double edge sword.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Now to be fair, The motorway system around Glasgow was going to get built no matter what, lets not forget how bad the old A77 was and how clogged up the south side was with traffic heading to Ayr. Stagecoach Glasgow did rather well out of the Motorway system with the likes of X8-X10. First's Busiest service No1 uses the Cyldeside Expressway. It can be double edge sword.

That's true in part. There have been a few opportunities, and motorways were going to be built. However, I struggle to think of a UK city that has such a motorway network to the heart of the city.

Also, I said car centric policies. That isn't just the motorway network. It's the amount of street based parking which is a double whammy. It constrains road space so bus lanes/bus priority isn't achievable, but also promotes the idea of car ownership and usage.

 

[tbtc]

I don't think those train fares are unreasonably low. Don't forget that, in the main, the towns surrounding Glasgow are not affluent and local residents don't tend to be well off - so fares will tend to be lower than in more affluent areas anyway.

Just to give examples of journeys which are of comparable length elsewhere in the country - an off peak day return from Newcastle to Sunderland is £3.70, from Cardiff to Barry £3.90, and from Liverpool to Meols Cop (just beyond Southport) is £5.50. I've deliberately picked urban areas which aren't especially affluent as I think that gives a fairer comparison (though Southport is fairly well off so that particular choice might not be perfect).

In general, buses can't compete with trains on fares, at least not on these relatively short distances. They have to focus on frequency and convenience - they stop more, they penetrate estates more effectively. As an example, the X24 between Sunderland and Newcastle is more expensive than the train or metro, but is well used because it connects the west end of Sunderland to Newcastle (avoiding the need to travel into the centre and out again). That's how you compete - and there do seem to be routes which do this quite effectively (the 18 in East Kilbride for example - I expect Calderwood residents will choose that bus over travelling to the station and then a train).

I'm fine with adult train fares being subsidised to those kind of levels - it's just that we don't then consider the need to subsidise adult bus fares (children, pensioners, sure, but not working age adults)

So of course people will prefer the train, since they can travel all the way from Glasgow to Paisley/ Hamilton/ Airdrie/ Dumbarton etc for the same price as a three stop bus journey.

The reason why you can say that "buses can't compete with trains on fares" is because train fares are so heavily subsidised in PTE areas, whilst adult bus passengers are having to pay the full fare (in fact, are often having to pay more because of the way that bus companies have to "game" the system to cover the cost of carrying so many concessionary passengers).

I'm sure that trains would be more popular if the fares were identical, but we're in this strange situation where adult bus passengers are having to pay more than the normal fare ought to be (because of the way that Concessionary fares are rebated) whilst adult train passengers are only paying a fraction of the fares (because of PTE subsidies). No wonder buses can't compete.

Or we stop giving away as much free travel and start subsidising concessionary fares properly (rather than this silly, no better or worse off thing which doesn't actually work) so then bus operators aren't constantly playing a game against an algorithm to get decent concessionary reimbursement.

The tweet got removed relatively quickly but I'm sure Ralph Roberts said a while back on Twitter than if concessionary reimbursement was at 100%, McGills could offer a flat fare of under £2 on all routes (it was a figure between £1.20 and £1.70 but I can't remember fully so I am opting for under £2 incase someone can find the old tweet). When bus operators fares are based on playing against an reimbursement algorithm, it will always mean that fare payers are paying much more than needed to counteract the money lost through the 'no better or worse off' concessionary passes.

Yeah, it's really frustrating - I don't mind old people getting free bus fares in principle (I'm hoping to be old myself, one day), but bus operators have to overcharge adult passengers to ensure that the councils give them a "fair" rebate (whilst the same councils subsidise adult train fares)

It will be impossible to produce a business case for the Glasgow Metro without proper bus integration. You can't continue to have buses from all over the Strathclyde region come into the centre of Glasgow if there will be street running trams on the core cross-city routes. Preserving the bus network could only be done if the Metro had extremely expensive underground tunnels in the city centre, which is unlikely when street running capability is almost guaranteed for ease of extension into lower-density suburbs.

Encouraging bus passengers to interchange onto the Metro is also a great way of boosting passenger numbers on the Metro from day one. With fewer buses, the Metro can then run faster, reducing journey times again. Heavy rail services can do the same.

What this seems to be is the private bus operators shifting into acceptance of a franchising model like in London. There will still be plenty of work for all of the companies, taking on bus route contracts from SPT or its successor.

I appreciate that there are arguments in favour of and against the idea of terminating bus services at the nearest light rail stop (e.g. here in Sheffield the Stocksbridge buses have been largely replaced by a tram feeder service from Middlewood, but Stagecoach weren't able to create the same market on the SL2 from Malin Bridge to Stannington or the SL3 from Crystal Peaks to KIllamarsh - both of which were scrapped).

However there does seem to be an attitude on the Forum that "we must maintain long distance railway links because people don't like changing" but also "long established bus routes must be cut at the nearest heavy/light rail station to force everyone to change to get into the city centre"

So train passengers get to retain their direct services but bus passengers should be made to change modes. Not a go at any one poster in particular, but I've noticed a number of times that rail passengers are too important to have to cope with the inconvenience of changing en route whilst it's apparently okay for the bus routes to have such cuts.

Now to be fair, The motorway system around Glasgow was going to get built no matter what, lets not forget how bad the old A77 was and how clogged up the south side was with traffic heading to Ayr. Stagecoach Glasgow did rather well out of the Motorway system with the likes of X8-X10. First's Busiest service No1 uses the Cyldeside Expressway. It can be double edge sword.

The M74 extension doesn't have any buses on it, does it?

The various bits of urban motorway/ dual carriageway mean that it's much easier for motorists to access places like Silverburn/ Glasgow Fort/ Braehead (even if travelling from the other side of town) - which makes it very hard for bus operators to compete.

Compare that to Edinburgh, which has a pretty similar urban road network to fifty years ago (other than the little routes like the Western Approach Road and Harry Lauder Road), and buses can still compete for urban journeys

 

[overthewater]

That's true in part. There have been a few opportunities, and motorways were going to be built. However, I struggle to think of a UK city that has such a motorway network to the heart of the city.

Also, I said car centric policies. That isn't just the motorway network. It's the amount of street based parking which is a double whammy. It constrains road space so bus lanes/bus priority isn't achievable, but also promotes the idea of car ownership and usage.

I can't disagree with the Car centric policies, its no good just going after the street based parking, you would need to have CITY wide approached that would also make parking not so easy in 3 big shopping districts outside the city centre.

The M74 extension doesn't have any buses on it, does it?

The various bits of urban motorway/ dual carriageway mean that it's much easier for motorists to access places like Silverburn/ Glasgow Fort/ Braehead (even if travelling from the other side of town) - which makes it very hard for bus operators to compete.

Compare that to Edinburgh, which has a pretty similar urban road network to fifty years ago (other than the little routes like the Western Approach Road and Harry Lauder Road), and buses can still compete for urban journeys

That is the only section not to have any buses on it, the rest all do, the whole point of that section was to try and get rid of all the cross city traffic. By moving the traffic away from the city it should help, I think in years to come you may see that section being scaled back.

As I said its double edge sword as its also made it much easier for buses also to access places like X8 to Sliverburn, X19 for Fort. X7, X23 etc etc at Breahead. People want direct bus services and if on the whole you give passenger said services the public will use them.

Edinburgh Just as bad for Congestion even with it's great bus network, and £5 parking per hour in the city centre. I can point pint to places were the traffic is beyond a joke, most of these links have very poor bus and or train links. No one seems to want to fix them.

 

[route101]

East Kilbride is a good example where buses from certain areas like Calderwood are quicker than the train. The two train stations are park and rides, East Kilbride railway station has a poor hourly service passing.

The SPT Daytripper is not marketed as a multi modal day ticket. It annoys me they cant print this on railway ticket stock.

As for prices I am happy to pay more for the train if its quicker, though its cheaper with a railcard. Trains are generally more dependable.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I can't disagree with the Car centric policies, its no good just going after the street based parking, you would need to have CITY wide approached that would also make parking not so easy in 3 big shopping districts outside the city centre.



That is the only section not to have any buses on it, the rest all do, the whole point of that section was to try and get rid of all the cross city traffic. By moving the traffic away from the city it should help, I think in years to come you may see that section being scaled back.

As I said its double edge sword as its also made it much easier for buses also to access places like X8 to Sliverburn, X19 for Fort. X7, X23 etc etc at Breahead. People want direct bus services and if on the whole you give passenger said services the public will use them.

Edinburgh Just as bad for Congestion even with it's great bus network, and £5 parking per hour in the city centre. I can point pint to places were the traffic is beyond a joke, most of these links have very poor bus and or train links. No one seems to want to fix them.

However, the city centre is still, by far, the main traffic objective and that is where the greatest need for bus priority is. You may think that the idea was to remove cross city traffic and it would help....but help who? It seems to have greatly assisted private motorists with any benefits for bus operators being more than outweighed by the damage as more cars enter the city centre.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I appreciate that there are arguments in favour of and against the idea of terminating bus services at the nearest light rail stop (e.g. here in Sheffield the Stocksbridge buses have been largely replaced by a tram feeder service from Middlewood, but Stagecoach weren't able to create the same market on the SL2 from Malin Bridge to Stannington or the SL3 from Crystal Peaks to KIllamarsh - both of which were scrapped).

However there does seem to be an attitude on the Forum that "we must maintain long distance railway links because people don't like changing" but also "long established bus routes must be cut at the nearest heavy/light rail station to force everyone to change to get into the city centre"

So train passengers get to retain their direct services but bus passengers should be made to change modes. Not a go at any one poster in particular, but I've noticed a number of times that rail passengers are too important to have to cope with the inconvenience of changing en route whilst it's apparently okay for the bus routes to have such cuts.

You don't need to terminate the bus route as soon as there's a light rail stop. However, you'd be hard pressed to squeeze both an intensive bus and a street running light rail service along the same urban streets. Once you have integrated ticketing (e.g. no more concessionary bus fare distortions), you have to look at what purpose a bus service has. If it's faster to interchange, then people interested in speed will interchange. Someone who's staying on the bus even when it's slower is probably interested in going somewhere that the other, more intensive transport modes can't take them as easily. You might end up with bus services which do still provide a continuous journey, albeit a much slower one focusing on direct connectivity rather than speed.

 

[james73]

Would love to see tickets that allow bus and train for Glasgow. There is but it covers a far wider area and cant go through barriers . I often take bus into town and train it back. Or decide to get train and bus if im out.

Well, the Zonecard has been around for years.

ZoneCard | SPT | Strathclyde Partnership for Transport

The ZoneCard is a flexible season ticket for unlimited* travel by ScotRail, Subway, most buses, and some ferries in the Strathclyde region. ZoneCard may be used wherever you see the ZoneCard logo.

www.spt.co.uk

I think operators have been trying to persuade SPT to bring the Zonecard into the 21st Century for a while now, but it’s only 2021, so plenty of time for them yet!!

It's ridiculous they don't have a phone app for the Zonecard yet. I used to buy monthly First Bus tickets but then lost it one day when it still had over 2 weeks left on it. That made my mind up and I downloaded the First Bus app for my phone that evening. A Zonecard app is badly needed.

 

[markymark2000]

But concessionary fares at 100% would be considerably overpaying, as most regulars do not pay cash singles, rather they get season tickets at a very substantial discount.

If a low flat fare was in place though, there wouldn't be season tickets, as per in London. If we are comparing season tickets, buses work out very cheap. I get your point but I stand by the fact that walk up singles are priced very high since they provide a higher weighting for concessionary bus pass reimbursement. (You may note how Arriva often price their single fares quite high with it then only being a small bit extra for a return and a small bit extra again for day tickets (£3.90 for a single, £4.50 for a return in my area)

Yeah, it's really frustrating - I don't mind old people getting free bus fares in principle (I'm hoping to be old myself, one day), but bus operators have to overcharge adult passengers to ensure that the councils give them a "fair" rebate (whilst the same councils subsidise adult train fares)

Or give lots of concessionary extras such as trains, morning peak travel and lowering the concessionary age to lower than the government guidance minimum. It'd be much better to provide higher reimbursement on a lower number of passes than low reimbursement on lots of passes.

You don't need to terminate the bus route as soon as there's a light rail stop. However, you'd be hard pressed to squeeze both an intensive bus and a street running light rail service along the same urban streets. Once you have integrated ticketing (e.g. no more concessionary bus fare distortions), you have to look at what purpose a bus service has. If it's faster to interchange, then people interested in speed will interchange. Someone who's staying on the bus even when it's slower is probably interested in going somewhere that the other, more intensive transport modes can't take them as easily. You might end up with bus services which do still provide a continuous journey, albeit a much slower one focusing on direct connectivity rather than speed.

Do you mean like the Stagecoach 219 to Ashton running along the Metrolink. Or perhaps the Lothian 100 against Edinburgh Trams, or the First 83/84 against the Oldham Metrolink. Blackpool Transport duplicating their own trams with their route 1. Plenty of other bus routes duplicate trams and work very well side by side making money since both serve a slightly different purpose. I think that Blackpool is probably the best example since their tram and bus tickets are the same so it proves that both can work side by side without issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If a low flat fare was in place though, there wouldn't be season tickets, as per in London.

There are season tickets in London as well as a daily, weekly and monthly cap.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Do you mean like the Stagecoach 219 to Ashton running along the Metrolink. Or perhaps the Lothian 100 against Edinburgh Trams, or the First 83/84 against the Oldham Metrolink. Blackpool Transport duplicating their own trams with their route 1. Plenty of other bus routes duplicate trams and work very well side by side making money since both serve a slightly different purpose. I think that Blackpool is probably the best example since their tram and bus tickets are the same so it proves that both can work side by side without issues.

The Airlink 100 provides an alternative to the tram, yes. That service is funded by Edinburgh Airport, who clearly think it is worthwhile. That said, the city is still planning to completely redesign the city centre and that will mean major changes to bus services. When you've got limited urban space you need to prioritise which transport modes you use it for. The plan for Princes Street is for it to become tram and pedestrian only, so all of the bus services which currently use it as a primary east-west corridor and linear bus station will need to go somewhere else. The radial bus services will continue, but they'll either turn back once they reach the edge of the city centre, or they'll run around the edge. The limited cross-city centre bus capacity will be used for services that don't largely duplicate tram corridors. The end result of all this, for a bus operator, is that their economics will suffer but for the benefit of the city as a whole. That requires integrated planning or it just won't work. Bus operators need an economic incentive to run an unprofitable route ahead of attempting to carve out a profitable one even if it ruins the overall city plan, and some sort of franchising/concession model can deliver that.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The Airlink 100 provides an alternative to the tram, yes. That service is funded by Edinburgh Airport, who clearly think it is worthwhile. That said, the city is still planning to completely redesign the city centre and that will mean major changes to bus services. When you've got limited urban space you need to prioritise which transport modes you use it for. The plan for Princes Street is for it to become tram and pedestrian only, so all of the bus services which currently use it as a primary east-west corridor and linear bus station will need to go somewhere else. The radial bus services will continue, but they'll either turn back once they reach the edge of the city centre, or they'll run around the edge. The limited cross-city centre bus capacity will be used for services that don't largely duplicate tram corridors. The end result of all this, for a bus operator, is that their economics will suffer but for the benefit of the city as a whole. That requires integrated planning or it just won't work. Bus operators need an economic incentive to run an unprofitable route ahead of attempting to carve out a profitable one even if it ruins the overall city plan, and some sort of franchising/concession model can deliver that.

What does this have to do with Strathclyde?

What @markymark2000 was saying, and I think you were in some agreement, is that buses when running alongside trams (and indeed trains) are performing a different purpose and, again, it demonstrates that buses don't tend to compete with one other transport modes. That buses and other modes should be better integrated in Strathclyde, as in other places, is a laudable objective. What we don't want is a slavish obsession that removes direct links and makes buses purely as a conduit for a tram/train network.

 

[adrock1976]

Having had a quick look at the publication (which was prominently displayed on the home page of the SPT website while I was looking for something else), there is little mention of Glasgow bringing back trams.

According to an article a while ago in the local rag Glasgow Evening Times that I had saw, Glasgow had the most number of tram cars that had numbered around one thousand.

A new tram route (Phase I) could run from Queen Street Station - Central Station - Broomielaw - Clyde Arc Bridge - Pacific Quay - Govan Cross (for Underground) - New Southern General - Braehead Centre - Renfrew Cross - Airport - Abbotsinch - Love Street - Paisley Gilmour Street Station - Paisley Cross - Canal Station

Phase II would be a conversion of the Neilston/Newton/Cathcart lines as the overhead line equipment was installed in 1960 and due for replacement in the near future. This would link with and continue to Queen Street. There could be arms or deviations that could penetrate Croftfoot, The 'Milk (Castlemilk), and Mearns Cross.

When Manchester have completed their tram network, perhaps they could have a go with designing, developing, and implementing a tram system for Glasgow, being as they are the experts in doing so.

After all, Manchester, Sheffield, the West Midlands, Croydon, and Nottingham have all brought back trams in recent years - perhaps it is Glasgow's turn to bring back trams?