It could be that the size of the UK doesn't make co-ordination simple - it's easy to look at smaller countries like the Netherlands and Switzerland (and, it always seems to be those two - plus Germany - that people fixate on...) but it'd be much easier to organise/ co-ordinate things in a smaller country
But if people will keep focussing on the best countries then it's easy to find flaws in what the UK does - I don't see the same level of people suggesting we copy Spain/ France/ Italy - so is it more the case that one large country (Germany) seems to do public transport better than average, so that's the stick that the UK keeps being beaten with?
That said, beyond the political obsession with the NHS, the Great British Public seem fairly ambivalent about well funded public services - we treat our health service as a religion but don't seem particularly bothered about any other public services (or paying for them that highly). In some ways, the railway is one of the best bits of the UK public sector (given how well funded it is, how little it's been affected by austerity etc) - if you think our railways are bad (despite the "gold plated" bits) then see how threadbare things like Prisons are.
Another issue is that integration is often unpopular. To use an example local to me, when the Metro began to run between Gateshead and Newcastle, buses which had ran direct into Newcastle city centre (and often beyond) were curtailed at Gateshead Interchange, with passengers having to transfer for onward travel. Whilst this was more efficient and probably faster for many journeys, it was wildly unpopular and was eventually reversed.
Fair point!
It's often the same people on here that demand direct long distance rail links (whether that's everywhere in northern England to Manchester Airport each hour or everywhere on the BR "Cross Country" map to everywhere else on the BR "Cross Country" map each day - and talk about the importance of putting small places "on the map" by giving them regular train services to London) because "people don't like to change"...
...who also seem to think that passengers should be happy to lose their direct bus service into the city centre (and instead take a bus that will terminate at a suburban tram/train station, where they can change). In terms of attractive journeys, the bus into the nearest city is a journey you could make hundreds of times a year, whereas a journey like Newcastle - Manchester Airport or Brighton - Liverpool is the kind of journey you might make once a year - I know which I'd prioritise.
Comes down to political will on all sides. I do not want to union bash as it takes the thread OT - but - if I have my car with no worries about the unions disrupting things, it makes a huge difference that feeling of freedom. I just wish the Governments etc. could negotiate a no-strike/disruption deal with the unions. That would help public transport and thus the integration of the various forms.
The industrial relations one is interesting - I don't know whether British unions are more likely to threaten to strike than continental ones (and, threats of strike are probably a more significant metric than actual days lost to strikes, given the impact upon bosses and passengers who are anticipating being unable to travel), but if that is the case then I guess there's the argument that some bodies would be less willing to take on"troublesome" organisations (e.g. would a train company want to take responsibility for an apparently militant bus company, given the potential headaches and disruption that they would taking on responsibility for)?
Quite so. The number of passengers coming to town for work or shops would have greatly outnumbered those desiring interchange. Therein lies the nub of the problem replicated in so many towns and cities across the country - integration would mean loads of near empty buses travelling to railway stations (awkwardly sited for local transport networks) and running at times optimised for the railway timetable rather than local needs. (The bus to North Petherton departing 40 minutes after the shops have shut in order to connect with the express from London, whose time is governed by train pathing at Ealing Broadway....... Coupled to the fact that this train is late 3 days out of 5....)
Great points - I think that a site full of train enthusiasts often over-inflates how important trains are - you could run a local bus network so that everything served the local train station and all buses were co-ordinated with train arrivals/departures, but that's real "tail wagging the dog" stuff.
Plus there's the issue that our railways were built haphazardly by Victorian entrepreneurs, so often located far from the main shopping area that bus passengers are bothered about (compared to countries that planned their railways properly and ensured that they had better stations in the centres of towns). In a lot of places, the geography makes serving the train station a bit unattractive for bus services. Can't change that now, of course, but it may explain why it's not easy/desirable for local bus networks to be predominantly built around the whims of a train timetable.
I do it every week! Albeit the hills out at a bit, err, steep.