Transport for Strathclyde – A New Public Transport Network

[GALLANTON]

East Kilbride train station doesn't seem to be in the best location unfortunately.

 

[busmanaams]

I'm guessing if this happens SPT's boundaries will shrink, would the citizens of Glasgow be happy paying for buses in far away Ayr and Kilmarnock?

Conversely do residents of Ayrshire (like me) really want to pay for expensive experiments in Glasgow when we have fewer buses per day than I have fingers? (The latest offering looks strangely similar to papers that I produced when I worked for SPTE in the late 1970s) (I knew someone would eventually read them!

 

[KGGXXXY]

GlasgGo Bus Alliance have unveiled their "Alliance Manifesto", a 6 page pdf so I wont paste all here, link: https://glasgobus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/GlasGo-Bus-Alliance-Manifesto-2021.pdf

a portion of the intro below:

Introducing GlasGo Bus Alliance GlasGo Bus Alliance is a partnership formed of the leading bus operators in Glasgow and the surrounding area who are working collaboratively, in a new way, to transform the bus travel experience for current and future bus customers in the city. The shared vision is focused on creating seamless bus travel across the city region by delivering a simple to use, fast, smart and integrated bus network. All operators are welcome.

The alliance currently includes: • City Sightseeing Glasgow • First Glasgow • First Midland • Glasgow Citybus • JMB Travel • McGill’s • Stagecoach East Scotland • Stagecoach West Scotland • Whitelaw’s • Glasgow Community Transport

What GlasGo Bus will deliver Our five-year joint vision for 2026 is clear and the journey has already begun. We will deliver a simple to use, fast, smart, integrated bus network which encourages modal shift for both residents and visitors travelling to, within and from the City of Glasgow. To achieve this we will:

• Develop and further strengthen partnership commitments by working with key stakeholders including (and not exclusive to); local and national government, SPT, ScotRail, Transport Scotland, Sustrans, Glasgow Life, Visit Scotland, STA, Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, SYP, Disability Equality Scotland, Bus Users Scotland, local community groups, BAME and LGBT+ groups, business groups and other interest groups.

• Support and complement Glasgow City’s strategies and projects including the Glasgow Bus Partnership, Glasgow City Region Deal, Glasgow City Centre Transport Strategy and the Avenues projects. This will ensure a seamless, practical and timely delivery of an integrated transport system for the city.

• Active participation on the Glasgow Bus Partnership which will include delivery of the funding already received in the first stage submission of Transport Scotland’s Bus Partnership Fund. Working closely with other partners to ensure even wider infrastructure improvements are delivered and existing measures for reducing congestion are enforced.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

Well, apparently COP26 has (rightly) highlighted the fact that Glasgow (and the Greater Glasgow area) is still trailing a lot of other European cities in terms of public transport provision. Also, as a part-Dane, part-Scot who has spent considerable time living abroad in Switzerland and Spain, a publicly regulated, fully integrated public transport system seems like common sense to me and I really don't understand why it's taking so long to achieve in Scotland.

From what I've understood, Glasgow city council has considered moving to bus franchising or creating a municipal bus company (don't think they've decided yet which one), though the council has not provided any time-table or rough estimate as to how or when they aim to achieve this. I also have to say that I'm not sure which model I'd prefer. It seems both would be so much better than what there is now, but one of my biggest pet peeves with the existing deregulated system has always been the lack of integration, so I suppose a municipal bus-operator would not solve long-term issues, if there is still a lack of integrated planning between bus services, (future- )trams/light-rail, trains and the underground.

It really seems to me that in the medium-term, London-style franchising is both realistic and desirable, not to mention probably more cost-effective than running buses entirely publicly. Public transport in London is by no means perfect, but the way the system is integrated makes it a lot easier to use and reminds me a lot of my experiences in Denmark and Switzerland. I know councils in the UK have generally faced legal hurdles, but I thought councils and combined authorities in Scotland did have the powers necessary because of devolution?

I'm really happy that Manchester are finally making the move to franchising, which I hope will lead to others (including Glasgow) following suit.


Warning: Most of my comment from this point on is quite off-topic and I don't wish the discussion to turn in that direction, rather, due to my cultural background, I'd like to give some context as to why I believe an integrated public transport network in the Greater Glasgow / Strathclyde area is plain common sense and should have become a reality as soon as it was legally possible (insane that the UK government would ever prevent councils from taking control of their buses, never mind not giving them adequate funding for it).

In Madrid, unlike London, there isn't any fully integrated public transport system, neither in terms of time-tabling, nor ticketing. However, all forms of transport, from the trains to the trams/light-rail, buses and metro are publicly run, just by different publicly-owned companies. The lack of fully integrated ticketing is a wee bit frustrating, however, there are cheap and convenient tickets which are valid on both the metro and buses/trams/light-rail and you also can buy relatively affordable season tickets (and slightly pricy tourist passes) which are valid on all forms of public transport. The service in general is pretty good and I found the municipal bus network to be very extensive, frequent, cheap and easy to use.

As such, I think this is what Glasgow could also achieve with a municipal bus-operator (a bit like in Edinburgh), even if in the long-term fully integrated public transport across greater Glasgow or Strathclyde might be desirable.

On the other hand, both in the whole of Switzerland and Denmark, all forms of transport are integrated. I'll be honest, the Swiss are kings at this and better than the Danes, especially in terms of integrated time-tables and of course punctuality, but both systems are very good by UK standards.

In Switzerland, all forms of public transport are coordinated at a regional and municipal level. As such, every region has a system of zoning. To my knowledge, all operators are either publicly-owned or regulated in a Tfl-like style, where regional and municipal authorities set the timetables, fares, routes etc. Unlike in London, the price for a journey will cost the same, regardless of whether you're using the bus, train, tram or even boat, all that matters are the number of zones. Even without a smart-card like Oyster, this system is incredibly convenient. You usually have single tickets (normally 1-2 hours) and 24 hour tickets, as well as seasonal / youth passes. Public transport is expensive, like everything else in Switzerland, but value for money is great, because the system is convenient to use, efficient, punctual and clean.

Ticket integration on a national level is not quite as good, but timetables are fully integrated and you can usually book your journey using the Swiss state railways website. For example, it's common for Swiss people to take a trip into the mountains or country-side. Timetables are integrated end to end, meaning that when your bus/tram drops you off at the train station, you don't have to wait for long until your train arrives, then at your destination, the buses further into the countryside or mountains will already be there waiting for you. Tickets can be bought so that they are valid from end to end. The Swiss also have minimum service level requirements, meaning that even small villages and towns usually have a bus service and the larger the town in question, the better the service. This means that in a lot of Swiss towns and cities buses/trams leave every 5-10 minutes on core routes and usually at least every 20-30 minutes on regional lines. An hourly service is usually the worst you'll get far out in the countryside, with very few exceptions, although in thinly populated areas the timetable might be restricted to day-time hours or less.

It's worth pointing out that even within little Switzerland, there are big cultural differences. However, throughout Switzerland, there is broad support for publicly-funded and run transport, whether it be intercity rail or local buses, trams and trains (or even boats). The Swiss are some of the least ideological people on the planet (for better or for worse), so this has very little to do with a general preference for public ownership. The Swiss will choose whatever model they think makes the most sense. Sometimes the state has a role in this, other times it does not.

Interestingly, the road network in Switzerland (at least in and around Zurich) is the polar opposite of the public transport network. It is quite badly planned, disjointed and not that intuitive to use. As such, despite the fact that the average number of car journeys in and around Zurich (just to give one example) is fairly low by European comparison (owing to high public transport ridership), the roads are still heavily congested during peak times.

In Denmark, timetables are not as well integrated as in Switzerland and similar minimum service level requirements are not a thing. As such, car-ownership and the number of car journeys outside the Greater Copenhagen area is also a lot higher than most places in Switzerland, which, despite a more extensive and better planned road system, is also starting to lead to congestion. However, where the system does shine is with its integrated ticketing. Denmark has a kind of country-wide Oyster card system and ticket zoning, which means you can use trains, buses, trams or the metro all with one smart-card, just by tapping in and out. Unfortunately, it does not have a daily cap in the same way that London does, though seeing that single tickets are usually valid for 1-2 hours within certain zones, there is still a practical limit on how much you can spend within a day, even if you make dozens of trips. A daily-cap, like in London, would still be greatly appreciated though.

It seems then, that the Netherlands is perhaps the only country that has managed to provide fully integrated transport planning, meaning that they don't just have a great and fully integrated public transport system (from ticketing to timetabling), but also a decent road network (which is also way less congested than in most other European cities of similar size) and of course a fabulous network of segregated cycle-paths too. It's one of the few places in the world where you have proper choice between taking the car, cycling, walking or using public transport. That's really how all transport planning should work in my opinion.

 

[Man of Kent]

Well, apparently COP26 has (rightly) highlighted the fact that Glasgow (and the Greater Glasgow area) is still trailing a lot of other European cities in terms of public transport provision. Also, as a part-Dane, part-Scot who has spent considerable time living abroad in Switzerland and Spain, a publicly regulated, fully integrated public transport system seems like common sense to me and I really don't understand why it's taking so long to achieve in Scotland.

From what I've understood, the council has considered moving towards bus franchising or creating a municipal bus company (don't think they've decided yet which one), though the council have not provided any time-table or rough estimate as to how how or when they aim to achieve this. I also have to say I'm not sure which model I'd prefer. It seems both would be so much better than what there is now, but one of my biggest pet peeves with the existing deregulated system has always been the lack of integration, so I suppose a municipal bus-operator would not solve long-term issues, if there is still a lack of integrated planning between bus services, (future- )trams/light-rail, trains and the underground.

It really seems to me that in the medium-term, London-style franchising is both realistic and desirable, not to mention more cost-effective (in the short-term) than running buses entirely publicly. Public transport in London is by no means perfect, but the way the system is integrated makes it a lot easier to use and reminds me a lot of my experiences in Denmark and Switzerland. I know councils in the UK face legal hurdles, but I thought councils and combined authorities in Scotland did have the powers necessary?

I'm really happy that Manchester are finally making the move to franchising, which I hope will lead to others (including Glasgow) following suit.


Warning: Most of my comment from this point on is quite off-topic and I don't wish the discussion to turn in that direction, rather, due to my cultural background, I'd like to give some context as to why I believe an integrated public transport network in the Greater Glasgow / Strathclyde area is plain common sense and should have become a reality as soon as it was legally possible (insane that the UK government would ever prevent councils from taking control of their buses, never mind not giving them adequate funding for it).

In Madrid, unlike London, there isn't any fully integrated public transport system, neither in terms of time-tabling, nor ticketing. However, all forms of transport, from the trains to the trams/light-rail, buses and metro are publicly run, just by different publicly-owned companies. The lack of fully integrated ticketing is frustrating, however, there are cheap and convenient tickets which are valid on both the metro and buses/trams/light-rail and you also can buy relatively affordable season tickets (and slightly pricy tourist passes) which are valid on all forms of public transport. The service in general is pretty good and I found the municipal bus network to be very extensive, frequent, cheap and easy to use.

As such, I think this is what Glasgow could also achieve with a municipal bus-operator (a bit like in Edinburgh), even if in the long-term fully integrated public transport across greater Glasgow or Strathclyde might be desirable.

On the other hand, both in the whole of Switzerland and Denmark, all forms of transport are integrated. I'll be honest, the Swiss are kings at this and better than the Danes, especially in terms of integrated time-tables and of course punctuality, but both systems are very good by UK standards.

In Switzerland, all forms of public transport are coordinated at a regional and municipal level. As such, every region has a system of zoning. To my knowledge, all operators are either publicly-owned or regulated in a Tfl-like style, where regional and municipal governments set the timetables, fares, routes etc. Unlike in London, the price for a journey will cost the same, regardless of whether you're using the bus, train, tram or even boat, all that matters are the number of zones. Even without a smart-card like Oyster, this system is incredibly convenient. You usually have single tickets (normally 1-2 hours) and 24 hour tickets, as well as seasonal / youth passes. Public transport is expensive, like everything else in Switzerland, but value for money is great, because the system is convenient to use, efficient, punctual and clean.

Ticket integration on a national level is not quite as good, but timetables are fully integrated and you can usually book your journey using the Swiss state railways website. For example, it's common for Swiss people to take a trip into the mountains or country-side. Timetables are integrated end to end, meaning that when your train/tram to the train-station drops you off, you don't have to wait for long until your train arrives, then at your destination, the buses further into the country-side or mountains will already be there waiting for you. Tickets can be bought so that they are valid from end to end. The Swiss also have minimum service level requirements, meaning that even small villages and towns usually have a bus-service and the larger the place in question, the better the service. This means that in a lot of Swiss towns and cities buses/trams leave every 5-10 minutes on core-routes and usually at least every 20-30 minutes on regional lines. An hourly service is usually the worst you'll get far out in the country-side, with very few exceptions, although in thinly populated areas the timetable might be restricted to day-time hour or less.

It's worth pointing out that even within little Switzerland, there are big cultural differences. However, throughout Switzerland, there is broad support for publicly-funded and run transport, whether it be intercity rail or local buses, trams and trains (or even boats). The Swiss are some of the least ideological people on the planet (for better or for worse), so this has very little to do with a general preference for public ownership. The Swiss will choose whatever model they think makes the most sense. Sometimes the state has role in this, other times it does not.

Interestingly, the road network in Switzerland (at least in and around Zurich) is the polar opposite of the public transport network. It is quite badly planned, disjointed and not that intuitive to use. As such, despite the fact that the average number of car journeys in and around Zurich (just to give one example) is fairly low by European comparison (owing to high public transport ridership), the roads are still heavily congested during peak times.

In Denmark, timetables are not as well integrated as in Switzerland and similar minimum service level requirements are not a thing. As such, car-ownership and the number of car journeys outside the Greater Copenhagen area is also a lot higher than most places in Switzerland, which, despite a more extensive and better planned road system, is also starting to lead to congestion. However, where the system does shine is its integrated ticketing. Denmark has a kind of country-wide Oyster card system and ticket zoning, which means you can use trains, buses, trams or the metro all with one smart-card, also by tapping in and out. Unfortunately, it does not have a daily cap in the same way that London does, though seeing that single tickets are usually valid for 1-2 hours within certain zones, there is still a practical limit on how much you can spend within a day, even if you make dozens of trips. A daily-cap, like in London, would still be greatly appreciated though.

It seems like the Netherlands is perhaps one country that has managed to provide fully integrated transport planning, meaning that they don't just have good fully integrated public transport system (from ticketing to timetabling), but also a decent road network, which is also way less congested than in most other European cities of similar size, and of course a fabulous network of segregated cycle-paths too. It's one of the few places in the world where you have proper choice between taking the car, cycling, walking or using public transport. That's how all transport planning should work in my opinion.

All interesting stuff, but the fundamental difference in the UK is that no-one wants to pay for better public transport. It can only come from fares and taxes, and the UK preference is very much for the former. Perhaps worth comparing the cost of living and taxes in the places you have named with the UK.

Strathclyde, or any other place in the UK, can introduce integrated transport. But it will cost a fortune compared to what is spent by the public sector at the moment, and still doesn't tackle another fundamental, that our planning system has diluted the role of town and city centres, the one place that public transport can serve better than the car.

 

[johncrossley]

All interesting stuff, but the fundamental difference in the UK is that no-one wants to pay for better public transport. It can only come from fares and taxes, and the UK preference is very much for the former. Perhaps worth comparing the cost of living and taxes in the places you have named with the UK.

Strathclyde, or any other place in the UK, can introduce integrated transport. But it will cost a fortune compared to what is spent by the public sector at the moment, and still doesn't tackle another fundamental, that our planning system has diluted the role of town and city centres, the one place that public transport can serve better than the car.

Many aspects of integrated transport don't cost much, some aspects cost nothing and it can save money in certain circumstances. For example by rationalising bus routes so that you have fewer routes on the same road and instead rely on connections more, especially between bus and train. Glasgow is well suited with its comprehensive rail network. There are a hell of a lot more buses in Glasgow compared to similar sized cities in other countries, even ones with smaller rail networks than Glasgow.

Glasgow, like other British cities, run lots of routes on major corridors in order to provide direct connections to all suburbs. This uses a lot of buses, and is therefore expensive. Cities outside the UK don't do this as much.

 

[Cesarcollie]

All interesting stuff, but the fundamental difference in the UK is that no-one wants to pay for better public transport. It can only come from fares and taxes, and the UK preference is very much for the former. Perhaps worth comparing the cost of living and taxes in the places you have named with the UK.

Strathclyde, or any other place in the UK, can introduce integrated transport. But it will cost a fortune compared to what is spent by the public sector at the moment, and still doesn't tackle another fundamental, that our planning system has diluted the role of town and city centres, the one place that public transport can serve better than the car.

And of course our politicians are generally terrified of doing anything than might be seen as constraining the basic human right of every British citizen to drive and park their private car whenever and wherever they like at zero or minimal cost…….

 

[Trnsprt4Sctlnd]

A very contentious point in the West of Scotland.. there never seems to be quite the sheer level of waffle surrounding East Scotland and its public transport network.

Glasgow City Council wanting to do their own thing with metros & buses, but not owning or directly operating the current subway under circumstances.

Whilst SPT talks about basically controlling and/or coordinating the lot together presumably under their tutelage - train/trams/buses & ferries.

All at the same time the Scottish Government has raised train fares and have said that they now subsidise the trains even more which they say is unsustainable, yet there are millions thrown at under 22s.

What a mess.

I personally don’t think that any circumstance will work particularly well.

 

[markymark2000]

I wouldn't trust SPT to organise anything. Their current interventions in the local bus network are downright awful. Made confusing for the sake of it. Monkeys could throw darts and create better bus routes than SPT.

Evening buses though areas with no normal services or vastly different evening and daytime services for no reason. Even where they run the core buses, they make confusing with endless route numbers and variations. If anyone wants SPT to run their local buses, they must be on some funky stuff because no one with half a braincell wants SPT anywhere near their local buses.

 

[carlberry]

Many aspects of integrated transport don't cost much, some aspects cost nothing and it can save money in certain circumstances. For example by rationalising bus routes so that you have fewer routes on the same road and instead rely on connections more, especially between bus and train. Glasgow is well suited with its comprehensive rail network. There are a hell of a lot more buses in Glasgow compared to similar sized cities in other countries, even ones with smaller rail networks than Glasgow.

Glasgow, like other British cities, run lots of routes on major corridors in order to provide direct connections to all suburbs. This uses a lot of buses, and is therefore expensive. Cities outside the UK don't do this as much.

So the way to improve public transport is to offer less of it, and make it less convenient to the existing users?

 

[johncrossley]

So the way to improve public transport is to offer less of it, and make it less convenient to the existing users?

If it means more people using it overall, then yes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So the way to improve public transport is to offer less of it, and make it less convenient to the existing users?

If it means more people use it as a whole (because connecting with rail well might mean faster journeys), or if it saves money to allow more places to be connected, possibly, yes. It's a minority pursuit at the moment.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Please don't tell me we're going down this road again... For Manchester, now insert Glasgow

 

[RT4038]

And of course our politicians are generally terrified of doing anything than might be seen as constraining the basic human right of every British citizen to drive and park their private car whenever and wherever they like at zero or minimal cost…….

Perhaps because they know they will be voted out if they do. Simple survival. Easy to blame the politicians when it is actually the view of the majority of your fellow citizens.

 

[Falcon1200]

For example by rationalising bus routes so that you have fewer routes on the same road and instead rely on connections more, especially between bus and train.

So there would be less frequent bus services, and rather than going direct into (say) Glasgow City Centre passengers would be forced to change ?

So the way to improve public transport is to offer less of it, and make it less convenient to the existing users?

My thoughts exactly; Integration of public transport modes always sounds a Good Thing, but making journeys more inconvenient should not be the result !

And of course our politicians are generally terrified of doing anything than might be seen as constraining the basic human right of every British citizen to drive and park their private car whenever and wherever they like at zero or minimal cost

But there are many journeys, particularly in Scotland, where public transport is not, and never will be, a realistic option; For example, visiting my daughter approximately 30 miles away is a 40 minute drive, door to door. By public transport the same journey would take at least 2 hours, and would require bus/train/train/bus. So, even though I am fortunate enough to have both free rail and bus travel, I always drive. No amount of integration is going to change that.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

All interesting stuff, but the fundamental difference in the UK is that no-one wants to pay for better public transport. It can only come from fares and taxes, and the UK preference is very much for the former. Perhaps worth comparing the cost of living and taxes in the places you have named with the UK.

Strathclyde, or any other place in the UK, can introduce integrated transport. But it will cost a fortune compared to what is spent by the public sector at the moment, and still doesn't tackle another fundamental, that our planning system has diluted the role of town and city centres, the one place that public transport can serve better than the car.

Yeah, I've noticed that too, quite a shame really, although in some ways it seems attitudes might be shifting slightly. On the one hand, de facto subsidies for the railways are already quite high at this point, even under the Tories, who previously, contrary to a lot of other European countries, kept public subsidies to BR quite low throughout the 80s and early 90s. On the other hand, both the recent rail reform and now renewed talks about moving towards models of bus franchising (or at least giving councils more powers to do so) reveals that even within Tory circles, public transport is starting to be understood more as a useful public service, rather than merely a profit-driven enterprise or nuisance to car drivers. Now again, there is still quite a cultural gap between the continent and the UK more generally, but I do think it is slowly narrowing.

That said, it may well be that national pride is clouding my judgment a little bit, but I always thought Scotland leaned more towards continental positions on a range of political issues, including transport. I mean to say, I'm a little disappointed that the Scottish government hasn't more vociferously embraced the idea of integrated ticketing and timetabling across the whole of Scotland and come up with an action plan to tackle the issue. Even so, the problems with SPT notwithstanding, I was delighted to hear about the plans of creating a One Strathclyde network and moving towards integrated ticketing and timetabling in the Strathclyde area. I'm not for one minute suggesting that such a system will be easy to implement, but I do think it will be worth it and insofar as there might be problems, it can (similarly to Manchester in England) act as a learning curve for the rest of Scotland.

I also agree that prioritising public transport would, at least in some cases, bring about increased costs to the tax payer. However, while it's true that national governments, regional authorities and councils on the continent are perhaps more willing to subsidise public transport, it's also worth pointing out that subsidies to public transport (if done correctly) aren't just an empty black hole that keeps on growing the more you make public transport a priority. If the subsidies go towards creating a more efficient, punctual, clean, integrated and cheap service, then that can drive an increase in ridership, which, at least in an integrated publicly run and regulated system also means the increased revenue can be reinvested into improvements to the system, not to mention the benefits to the wider economy. Both in Zurich and Vienna, investment in public transport has greatly driven up passenger numbers in the last 10-20 years. In both cases, public funds were put to good use, although in the case of Vienna specifically, the subsidies also helped to lower ticket prices. The municipal tram/bus/trolleybus operator in Zurich (a city with around 100'000 fewer inhabitants than Edinburgh) registered over 300 million passenger journeys in 2018 and that does not take into account the 215 million passenger journeys made on the commuter rail network. The municipal operator of trams, buses and metros in Vienna (to be fair, a city roughly three times the size of Glasgow) registered roughly a billion passenger journeys in the same year. What I'm trying to say is, yes, subsidies are higher, but so is ridership and so are the economic benefits of having a good public transport system.

You are however right in saying that how cities and suburbs are planned also has a profound effect on how efficiently public transport can work. If suburbs and cities are planned around the use of trains/buses/trams etc. and designed to be relatively densely populated, then this creates a good support base for public transport. Unfortunately, there's quite a few suburbs in the UK (even newer ones) that are planned and built predominantly around the use of cars. That said, once again, I believe Scotland is in a slightly better position, amongst other things due the more wide-spread use of tenement housing for instance. Nonetheless, planning future suburbs and city neighbourhoods with public transport (and walking/cycling) in mind is very important. Once again, the Netherlands offer a great blueprint as to how it should be done. And yes, I realise their topography and demographics are different, but there are nonetheless some sensible planning principles that could be applied anywhere.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Perhaps because they know they will be voted out if they do. Simple survival. Easy to blame the politicians when it is actually the view of the majority of your fellow citizens.

To be honest, there was a certain politician with the bravery to introduce a congestion zone in London. Mind you, his successor is the epitome of populism.

It's all very easy to suggest that all we need to do is funnel people into a rail system in Strathclyde and that will sort things. However, with the peripheral location of a number of key stations, such as Cumbernauld or East Kilbride, this fixation with forced interchange will simply be counter-productive.

 

[johncrossley]

but I always thought Scotland leaned more towards continental positions on a range of political issues, including transport. I mean to say, I'm a little disappointed that the Scottish government hasn't more vociferously embraced the idea of integrated ticketing and timetabling across the whole of Scotland and come up with an action plan to tackle the issue.

The evidence over the last 20 years since there has been a Scottish Government is damning. Given that they've had the freedom and resources to change things, that arguably makes them even more stupid than the English!

 

[Mrwerdna1]

I wouldn't trust SPT to organise anything. Their current interventions in the local bus network are downright awful. Made confusing for the sake of it. Monkeys could throw darts and create better bus routes than SPT.

Evening buses though areas with no normal services or vastly different evening and daytime services for no reason. Even where they run the core buses, they make confusing with endless route numbers and variations. If anyone wants SPT to run their local buses, they must be on some funky stuff because no one with half a braincell wants SPT anywhere near their local buses.

Your argument seems intuitive at face value, but I don't think it's the right approach. A good example would be the rather dismal way Glasgow council is (in my opinion) currently handling a range of its public services. My reaction to this would be to try to hold them to account politically and make sure the council is properly run, not simply privatise all the services that aren't being provided in the way that they should be.

As such, I don't think recognising that SPT are making a hash of it in some areas is mutually exclusive with wanting a public body or authority to regulate (or run) public transport, rather than simply leaving it to private operators.

But there again, I think this exemplifies a certain cultural gap between continental Europe and the UK.

 

[johncrossley]

You are however right in saying that how cities and suburbs are planned also has a profound effect on how efficiently public transport can work. If suburbs and cities are planned around the use of trains/buses/trams etc. and designed to be relatively densely populated, then this creates a good support base for public transport. Unfortunately, there's quite a few suburbs in the UK (even newer ones) that are planned and built predominantly around the use of cars.

I think this is somewhat exaggerated and is used by people with a vested interest to justify existing policies. The argument being that the car based planning that happened in the 80s under Thatcher means that only car based policies can work from now on. As a consequence, public transport is assumed to be in perpetual decline and therefore you might as well stick with existing bus policies as nothing can be done. Vast number of young people have moved into inner cities, especially Manchester and London, which is also highly desirable from a sustainable transport point of view.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

I think this is somewhat exaggerated and is used by people with a vested interest to justify existing policies. The argument being that the car based planning that happened in the 80s under Thatcher means that only car based policies can work from now on. As a consequence, public transport is assumed to be in perpetual decline and therefore you might as well stick with existing bus policies as nothing can be done. Vast number of young people have moved into inner cities, especially Manchester and London, which is also highly desirable from a sustainable transport point of view.

True. It's certainly no argument not to improve public transport. Cuts usually lead to lower ridership which leads to more cuts. Denmark's low density urban sprawl is quite similar to the UK in a lot of areas. Nonetheless, as I mentioned, public transport is fully integrated throughout the country (at least in terms of ticketing and in some cases also in terms of timetables) and generally speaking a lot better than in the UK. What is important to recognise though, is that achieving not just decent but "world class" public transport (in the words of Glasgow Council), such as can be found in Switzerland, Austria or the Netherlands, also necessitates a clearer look at how cities/suburbs are planned and built.

The evidence over the last 20 years since there has been a Scottish Government is damning. Given that they've had the freedom and resources to change things, that arguably makes them even more stupid than the English!

I suppose you're not wrong in a sense. Regardless of one's principled stance on the matter, I think it would be difficult to deny that the most likely outcome of independence, should it happen, would be the SNP immediately being thrown out of government. In theory, a lot of their shortcomings already now cannot be excused by a lack of independence. However, devolution is a messy thing and it does probably mean that the average voter is not accurately informed about which matters are devolved and which aren't, meaning the SNP aren't exposed to the kind of pressure and public scrutiny that they ought to be.

That said, I thought transport was a more clear-cut matter and so once again, I'm disappointed that it's taken this long for a regional authority (not even the national government) to start talking about a fully integrated and publicly regulated public transport system.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think this is somewhat exaggerated and is used by people with a vested interest to justify existing policies. The argument being that the car based planning that happened in the 80s under Thatcher means that only car based policies can work from now on. As a consequence, public transport is assumed to be in perpetual decline and therefore you might as well stick with existing bus policies as nothing can be done. Vast number of young people have moved into inner cities, especially Manchester and London, which is also highly desirable from a sustainable transport point of view.

The planning regs in this country have little or no provision for public transport and it is evident in the way in which neighbourhoods are designed. @Mrwerdna1 points to the Danish low density sprawl; even here, the actual design allows for the adequate provision of cycling and public transport. They also do other things that, by definition, reduce the attractiveness of the private car. It's actually well worth a visit to the DAC (Danish Architecture Center) in Copenhagen where they detail how they design modern neighbourhoods (and revise existing ones). It's well worth a visit for anyone, not just those who don't have a vested interest to justify existing policies.

There are fundamental issues that need to be faced into and those planning policies don't just date from the 1980s; they exist now and some of those constraints are being watered down with Permitted Development Rights being continually relaxed since 2005.

I absolutely concur with @Mrwerdna1 that achieving world class transport needs proper investment AND a fundamental review of how developments are planned and the issue of road space usage in our cities.

 

[johncrossley]

I had recently come across some articles written by an urbanist blogger praising the Vinex style of planning in the Netherlands, which account for a large proportion of house construction in that country over the last few decades. They look and sound really good. They tick all the boxes that sustainable planners want. However, it seems that they are more car dependent than older housing, generally because they are by physical necessity further out of town and therefore nearer to motorways. Building flats in town and city centres seems like a better idea to me, which is what Britain has done a lot of in recent years.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Building flats in town and city centres seems like a better idea to me, which is what Britain has done a lot of in recent years.

They've also built a lot of sprawl in recent years. For no other reason that plucking it out of the air, I'd point you to Swindon and the sheer amount of building that has taken place there. Building flats in town and city centres has some benefit but doubtless is skewed to younger individuals (so more likely to walk and cycle).

 

[Mrwerdna1]

The planning regs in this country have little or no provision for public transport and it is evident in the way in which neighbourhoods are designed. @Mrwerdna1 points to the Danish low density sprawl; even here, the actual design allows for the adequate provision of cycling and public transport. They also do other things that, by definition, reduce the attractiveness of the private car. It's actually well worth a visit to the DAC (Danish Architecture Center) in Copenhagen where they detail how they design modern neighbourhoods (and revise existing ones). It's well worth a visit for anyone, not just those who don't have a vested interest to justify existing policies.

There are fundamental issues that need to be faced into and those planning policies don't just date from the 1980s; they exist now and some of those constraints are being watered down with Permitted Development Rights being continually relaxed since 2005.

I absolutely concur with @Mrwerdna1 that achieving world class transport needs proper investment AND a fundamental review of how developments are planned and the issue of road space usage in our cities.

That's very true and there are big differences between the "traditional" urban sprawl and more recent developments, especially in and around Copenhagen. In the latter case, as you rightly point out, the provision for public transport and cycling infrastructure are both key requirements. That said, councils throughout Denmark (and the national government) have dragged their feet when it comes to any measures aimed at reducing the number of cars permitted into city centres. In that way, urban planning policies are still a lot more car-centric than in the Netherlands or Switzerland, which makes the situation in Denmark a lot more comparable to Scotland (or Glasgow/Strathclyde more specifically) than to those two countries. I have to admit that I don't know too much about how urban planning works in Scotland, but I assume is it isn't too different to England or the rest of the UK, that is to say, very much lacking in terms of the provision for public transport, which is certainly something that will have to change in future.

 

[johncrossley]

Plenty of people live in low density suburbs in Switzerland. I've got an ex-colleague who comes from a small commuter town about 15 km from Bern. When we worked together, he showed me the spacious four bedroom detached family house where he grew up on Google. It seemed typical for the area when I browsed the wider area on Google. I didn't see any cycle paths or bus priority or anything that would make it stand out as somewhere sustainable. His family has two cars. But they still used public transport a lot. They would get the bus to the station about 3 km away which is timed to meet with trains to Bern. All on one ticket. His dad has an annual season ticket for all transport in the country which means he doesn't have to think about getting a ticket wherever he goes.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

Plenty of people live in low density suburbs in Switzerland. I've got an ex-colleague who comes from a small commuter town about 15 km from Bern. When we worked together, he showed me the four bedroom family house where he grew up on Google. It seemed typical for the area. I didn't see any cycle paths or bus priority or anything that would make it stand out as somewhere sustainable. His family has two cars. But they still used public transport a lot. They would get the bus to the station about 3 km away which is timed to meet with trains to Bern. All on one ticket. His dad has an annual season ticket for all transport in the country which means he doesn't have to think about getting a ticket wherever he goes.

Well, as I wrote in a comment further above, this is where the Swiss minimum service level requirements come into play. There are some towns/suburbs (mostly more traditional ones, though also a few newer developments) with relatively low density that are still served by bus. The Swiss philosophy is (rightly so, I'd say) that public transport is like a river and cutting off its supplies can bleed the river dry. In other words, if you don't have a bus service to get you to the train station, you'll have to drive there before you can even use the train. The hassle of having to drive to a train station, then getting into town by train, but once you're in town perhaps not being able to take the tram/bus further on in a convenient way, means many will just choose to drive all the way. The fact that timetables and tickets are integrated is all about making public transport as convenient as possible, while (in this case) not actually forcing it upon anyone. A big part of this strategy is also investing in frequent services.

The Swiss don't prioritise bikes as much as the Dutch, true, nor do they have the same level of traffic calming in cities, but they invest all the more heavily in public transport. In that way, just looking at the levels of public investment, but also when taking into account planning patterns for newer developments in and around the larger cities, Switzerland's policies are decidedly less car-centric than in Denmark and certainly the UK. In recent years, city councils have also started removing a lot of parking spaces and investing more heavily in cycling infrastructure, thereby making it a lot more difficult for people to drive into the city centre.

Returning to Glasgow, this is why integrated public transport makes a lot of sense. In the longer term though, besides a whole array of other benefits, high density urban planning centred around the use of public transport can also help keep down the increase in costs which a transition to such a system might bring about, because this way a single metro/tram/trainline can serve a lot more people all at the same time.

 

[Trnsprt4Sctlnd]

Nothing is going to change with the way public transport is viewed in the West of Scotland. Tackling the private car is going to be the only real way to at least try to get more onto public transport.

There is a lack of bus drivers, ergo unreliable bus services, overpriced train fares, ferries seem to be going through their own problems with reliability etc.

 

[Cesarcollie]

So there would be less frequent bus services, and rather than going direct into (say) Glasgow City Centre passengers would be forced to change ?



My thoughts exactly; Integration of public transport modes always sounds a Good Thing, but making journeys more inconvenient should not be the result !



But there are many journeys, particularly in Scotland, where public transport is not, and never will be, a realistic option; For example, visiting my daughter approximately 30 miles away is a 40 minute drive, door to door. By public transport the same journey would take at least 2 hours, and would require bus/train/train/bus. So, even though I am fortunate enough to have both free rail and bus travel, I always drive. No amount of integration is going to change that.

Quite clearly car trips can’t be eradicated. But a huge proportion (I forget the statistic) are journeys that are easily walkable for most people, and a further huge proportion are in urban areas, and/or to/from school, where there are plentiful bus services which could be used instead.

Perhaps because they know they will be voted out if they do. Simple survival. Easy to blame the politicians when it is actually the view of the majority of your fellow citizens.

Yep, that is of course true! But a true politician should be trying to lead a debate, not simply following public opinion!

 

[johncrossley]

(so more likely to walk and cycle).

Is that a problem?