Ship of Fools: Bus Lanes

Thread: Bus Lanes Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027721

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

The jury is out on Liverpool City Council's decision to scrap bus lanes for 9months to ease congestion.

I do see the argument for bus lanes.
However, one thing puzzles me. Why are taxis allowed to use the bus lanes alongside buses and cyclists? A taxi is no more environmentally friendly than a private car or a commercial van.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Because taxis are usually considered to be part of the "public transport mobility chain".

One taxi, used regularly throughout the day by many different passengers, is going to be less polluting in both the short and the long term than many individual cars used only occasionally, and sometimes simultaneously for the same journey.

I have also heard the statistic quoted, in a professional transport setting, that one car in three on the road in an urban environment is looking for a parking space, further pushing up pollution and congestion.

[ETA a source for that assertion, see also here]

[ 07. August 2014, 09:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

My experience in Liverpool, and elsewhere, is that many taxi journeys are taken with more than one passenger. The same is often not true of private cars. I would expect that on average the passengers/taxi is higher than people/private car. Though, I don't have any numbers on that (though if I had time to Google it I'll probably find some).

A second point is that taxi drivers income depends on them keeping their expenses down. So, with fuel costs rising, there is a strong incentive for them to drive more efficiently. As the vehicle fleet for taxis is renewed I expect there will be a higher uptake of vehicles with fuel saving features (eg: those that automatically cut out the engine when stationary) and hybrids among taxi drivers than the wider population.

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

In many cities and communities, the taxis are used by the local drug dealers to ferry themselves around on business. So the drug dealers sail along in the bus lanes while the van driver delivering legitimate supplies to the local pharmacy shops is held up in the normal lanes.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Are you suggesting all modes of transport likely to be used by drug dealers are fitted with some sort of speed governor?

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

I do not see the argument to scrap the bus lanes.

Just about every big city in the world has a problem with the congestion. One of the ways to go is to discourage people from using their own cars and use public transport instead. Bus lanes were designed to give an incentive to use buses. One would use bus because it would be faster than driving a car. Without the bus lanes, there is no incentive for the bus. This new policy hits two groups - poor people without cars and people which switched to buses because of this incentive.
All in all this change in policy seems to me as a stupid, short-sighted solution that will discourage people from public transport and make life for the poor even worse. In the end it will cause more traffic.

Taxis are generally acceptable on bus lanes because they almost always carry at least two people. It is just not economical for them to carry only one person during rush hours. It is then rational to expect a taxi driver to take at least one more person aboard. Taxis are easy to catalog, so it's easy to enforce the bus lane policies with registration scanners placed all over the town.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Why are taxis allowed to use the bus lanes alongside buses and cyclists?

They aren't always: certainly in this town there are "bus lanes" which are precisely that.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I see that Liverpool has bought into the idea of "It is all about the rich. We don't know any ordinary people"

and "Buses are just a socialist plot anyway"

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
In many cities and communities, the taxis are used by the local drug dealers to ferry themselves around on business.

I thought they were used by local authority members to deliver redundancy notices.

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Are you suggesting all modes of transport likely to be used by drug dealers are fitted with some sort of speed governor?

No. I suppose I was just pointing out an absurdity.

As I said in the OP, I'm not against bus lanes. As Baptist Trainfan points out, in some places these are for buses only (and presumably for cyclists too). Taxis should fight for space with everyone else.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well, I got Eutychus' joke. I suppose that these speed governors are some sort of e device to limit the extent to which the dealers can wizz around town. The idea probably goes right back to the days of horse cabs.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Taxis should fight for space with everyone else.

You have completely ignored my assertion that taxis are, for public transport planners, an integral part of the mobility chain.

See, for example:

Taxis: Sustainable mass transit needs sustainable micro transit from the website of the Union Internationale des Transports Publics, the international body for public transport

Taxis are part of the collective public transport chain, a recommendation of the EU public-private Smart Move High Level Group

What Taxis Add to Public Transit, an article linking to research offering statistical evidence that taxis are used as part of a multi-modal journey

and finish up with Global Taxi Schemes and their Integration in Sustainable Urban Transport Systems, an overview paper published on the UN's sustainable development knowledge programme website.

And for the avoidance of doubt, this is what I meant by a governor, also known as a speed limiter.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
in this town there are "bus lanes" which are precisely that.

The hardcore version of the humble bus lane is Bus Rapid Transit, featuring fully dedicated rights of way, often physically separated from other traffic, and especially popular in Latin America. Perhaps that might mollify Tulfes, although many European cities don't have much room for them.

[ 07. August 2014, 11:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I see that Liverpool has bought into the idea of "It is all about the rich. We don't know any ordinary people"

and "Buses are just a socialist plot anyway"

I see you have never been to Liverpool. If they were indeed a socialist plot the denizens of Liverpool would be all for it - it is a famously left leaning city. The spat between the local government and the bus people is that the former thinks the latter are part of a capitalist plot to ever increase bus fares to make profits for shareholders whilst not improving the service. Getting rid of bus lanes is a rather blunt tool to get back at bus companies IMNSHO, but that seems to be the reasoning

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I see you have never been to Liverpool. If they were indeed a socialist plot the denizens of Liverpool would be all for it - it is a famously left leaning city. The spat between the local government and the bus people is that the former thinks the latter are part of a capitalist plot to ever increase bus fares to make profits for shareholders whilst not improving the service. Getting rid of bus lanes is a rather blunt tool to get back at bus companies IMNSHO, but that seems to be the reasoning

It feels stupid to me to abandon a long-term solution to congestion just because the bus system does not work as desired. This short-term solution discourages people from using public transport which is just ridiculous. I do not believe we can afford highways with 12 lanes in the city center and I suspect that is the only way to eliminate congestion in the world where everyone drives a car.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

There is only one long-term solution to road traffic (short of de-population) - non-road public transportation.

Sort of like the one that got scrapped in Liverpool:
Merseytram

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There is only one long-term solution to road traffic (short of de-population) - non-road public transportation.

Sort of like the one that got scrapped in Liverpool:
Merseytram

Worked great in Edinburgh. There is never a one simple solution to a complex problem. Traffic congestion can be only solved by a mixture of public transport means both road and non-road plus accessible bike routes. As little cars as possible is the idea. Bus lanes are crucial in this model.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
There is never a one simple solution to a complex problem. Traffic congestion can be only solved by a mixture of public transport means both road and non-road plus accessible bike routes. As little cars as possible is the idea. Bus lanes are crucial in this model.

I'm all for bus lanes, but I think Britain underinvests in the type of transport infrastructure that's necessary for the long-term. Light rails and trams should be part of the solution. Bike lanes don't help me get home from the airport with luggage, or get my two kids and elderly grandparents to various appointments around town.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

How old are your kids? Very impressed in Amsterdam a few years ago to see the school run being done with this kind of thing.

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm all for bus lanes, but I think Britain underinvests in the type of transport infrastructure that's necessary for the long-term. Light rails and trams should be part of the solution. Bike lanes don't help me get home from the airport with luggage, or get my two kids and elderly grandparents to various appointments around town.

I dare to say that biggest traffic happens always when people go to work and get home from work. Bikes are great for that. Traffic on weekends is nothing like the Monday afternoon's traffic.

I'm not against the non-road means of transportation. However problem with trains and trams is that they are extremely expensive, and buses with bus lanes can do almost the same job for less. Plus one does not need to close half of the city to prepare for them.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Bike lanes would help if they were dedicated to bikes. If they are mixed with pedestrians then the latter are in danger from objects the same size moving at five times the speed, if they are on normal roads they are mixing it with vehicles many tikes theeir size. Niether is a good option.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
Traffic congestion can be only solved by a mixture of public transport means both road and non-road plus accessible bike routes. As little cars as possible is the idea. Bus lanes are crucial in this model.

And, actually, taxis are going to be part of such a solution too. Which probably means allowing them into bus lanes. If I was going to attend a meeting at Liverpool University I could drive down. Or, I could take the train. It's a short walk up the hill from Lime Street, but if it's pissing with rain (quite likely in Liverpool) and/or I'm carrying a lot of equipment or running a bit late then a taxi is the solution.

Of course, there isn't a dedicated bus/taxi lane up the hill to the university ... but, you get my point.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
How old are your kids? Very impressed in Amsterdam a few years ago to see the school run being done with this kind of thing.

They are theoretical kids, but I actually said kids and grandparents. My nan is not going to sit in a box in front of my bicycle.

The Netherlands has excellent train service, very easy to get around the country without a car.

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Bike lanes would help if they were dedicated to bikes. If they are mixed with pedestrians then the latter are in danger from objects the same size moving at five times the speed, if they are on normal roads they are mixing it with vehicles many tikes theeir size. Niether is a good option.

This is what I had in mind. However even this will do.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The Netherlands has excellent train service, very easy to get around the country without a car.

If you try building a train or tram service in a big and congested city, then you're likely get the same that happened in Edinburgh. I would love to have that in Aberdeen, however I know that well organized bus network, combined with numerous bike-specific lanes, and some taxis should do the trick. Aberdeen is far from that point but at least we still have the bus lanes with enforcement.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
[This is what I had in mind.

And what's that on the bridge in the distance...?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
Traffic congestion can be only solved by a mixture of public transport means both road and non-road plus accessible bike routes. As little cars as possible is the idea. Bus lanes are crucial in this model.
And, actually, taxis are going to be part of such a solution too. Which probably means allowing them into bus lanes. If I was going to attend a meeting at Liverpool University I could drive down. Or, I could take the train. It's a short walk up the hill from Lime Street, but if it's pissing with rain (quite likely in Liverpool) and/or I'm carrying a lot of equipment or running a bit late then a taxi is the solution.

Of course, there isn't a dedicated bus/taxi lane up the hill to the university ... but, you get my point.

Bus lanes mixed with bikes are wrong. Better for cyclists would be mix with pedestrians. Busses are large and can't wait it seems to pass cyclists. Neither combination is sensible.

Bike lanes and bus lanes are more than marks on roadways. Proper infrastrucure costs money. Mostly cars have the clout in most places. There are exceptions as noted.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I see that Liverpool has bought into the idea of "It is all about the rich. We don't know any ordinary people"

and "Buses are just a socialist plot anyway"
I see you have never been to Liverpool. If they were indeed a socialist plot the denizens of Liverpool would be all for it - it is a famously left leaning city. The spat between the local government and the bus people is that the former thinks the latter are part of a capitalist plot to ever increase bus fares to make profits for shareholders whilst not improving the service. Getting rid of bus lanes is a rather blunt tool to get back at bus companies IMNSHO, but that seems to be the reasoning

Not having privileged insight into the mind of our more-new-labour-than-socialist Mayor I find the decision perplexing. One of the problems is that although Liverpool has some fine wide boulevards (dating from the tramway age), some of the major routes into the centre are too narrow for consistent bus lanes anyway.

Another, which seems to me is more of a priority, is the chaotic deregulated bus system. The local transport authority (unlike Transport for London) has no power to decide routes and fares. Although there are county-wide discount and season tickets available on all buses and trains, the individual bus companies all offer in addition their own rival schemes. And unlike in central London, or in most continental cities, the driver also collects fares and gives change, which creates yet more congestion. We urgently need a unified system and something like the Oyster card (which was trailed here a few years ago but appears to have run up against opposition from the bus companies.)

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
[This is what I had in mind.
And what's that on the bridge in the distance...?

Photo is from Chicago, their rapid transport system started operating in 1892. It costs a fortune to build and buses with bus specific lanes can do almost the same job.

It costs money to build bike-specific lanes, however the productivity loss caused by congestion is a much greater cost. Plus lane like this can't cost a fortune, however it requires someone to plan the traffic carefully.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

MrWaters - just to be clear, are you opposed to any solutions outside of more buses/bus lanes, or bike lanes?

I'm saying a mix including light rail/tram along with suburban rail, cycling, etc. works in a lot of cities. I'm not sure what you object to in that point, but perhaps you don't object to it at all and we're speaking at cross purposes.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Because taxis are usually considered to be part of the "public transport mobility chain". ....

Unfortunately not. That's the reason for public consumption, but the actual reason is that tax-drivers are highly unionised, most large urban councils are under Labour Control, and Labour councillors do what taxi-drivers tell them.

That's also why the licensing arrangements give each local lot of taxi-drivers a monopoly of picking up within their own authority's area - notwithstanding that means that if the journey is into an adjoining authority's area, the journey back is always empty.

Keen though I am on trams, Seeking Sister, they aren't non-road public transportation.

Liverpool is the only UK city that ever had this - which is non-road. The Liver Building in the background proves it isn't Chicago. Am I the only shipmate who travelled on it?

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
MrWaters - just to be clear, are you opposed to any solutions outside of more buses/bus lanes, or bike lanes?

Considering the costs and how the current tram projects worked out. I do not believe that trains/trams are cost effective. Maybe at some point in the future, however right now the costs to the taxpayer and necessary road closures, make their construction undesirable. At the end trams work almost identically to buses (example is Warsaw with both means of transport).

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Because taxis are usually considered to be part of the "public transport mobility chain". ....
Unfortunately not. That's the reason for public consumption, but the actual reason is that tax-drivers are highly unionised, most large urban councils are under Labour Control, and Labour councillors do what taxi-drivers tell them.

That's also why the licensing arrangements give each local lot of taxi-drivers a monopoly of picking up within their own authority's area - notwithstanding that means that if the journey is into an adjoining authority's area, the journey back is always empty.

Keen though I am on trams, Seeking Sister, they aren't non-road public transportation.

Liverpool is the only UK city that ever had this - which is non-road. The Liver Building in the background proves it isn't Chicago. Am I the only shipmate who travelled on it?

In most, maybe all, large UK cities the taxi industry is in the control of organised crime: the drug runners, the gun runners, the people who run the city's prostitution business.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
How old are your kids? Very impressed in Amsterdam a few years ago to see the school run being done with this kind of thing.
They are theoretical kids, but I actually said kids and grandparents. My nan is not going to sit in a box in front of my bicycle.
...

Well, no, you'd need a rickshaw for her and that'd be too much to ask, I agree. Buit presumably the grandmother and theoretical kids don't always go around together everywhere, do they? Hence the suggestion. What you could reasonably have pointed out, though, is that for cycling really to be the default urban transport choice that it should be, we need a huge cultural shift which would have to be expressed in (or as i would hope led by) some powerful shifts in both traffic engineering and traffic law- for example, establishing a presumption, as I believe they have ion the Netherlands, that in a collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist the motor driver is at fault. (This would also help deal with my other bete noire, apart from drivers who don't think the road is the place for cyclists, which is cyclists who don't think the road is the place for cyclists.)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:

In most, maybe all, large UK cities the taxi industry is in the control of organised crime: the drug runners, the gun runners, the people who run the city's prostitution business.

And your evidence for this remarkable statement is...?

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:

In most, maybe all, large UK cities the taxi industry is in the control of organised crime: the drug runners, the gun runners, the people who run the city's prostitution business.

And your evidence for this remarkable statement is...?

I have spent the last 30 years working in law enforcement in a large UK city.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Liverpool is the only UK city that ever had this - which is non-road.

Well, the Liverpool Overhead Railway was indeed unique - but there are lots of "ordinary" railway lines built on continuous viaducts (such as the London & Greenwich Railway, still open and the very first railway line in London).

Of course, you could always follow the example of Wuppertal in Germany - for much of its course the monorail is suspended over a river. It is for you to decide whether its utility and fascination outweigh its ugliness ...

[ 07. August 2014, 14:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Because taxis are usually considered to be part of the "public transport mobility chain". ....
Unfortunately not. That's the reason for public consumption, but the actual reason is that tax-drivers are highly unionised, most large urban councils are under Labour Control, and Labour councillors do what taxi-drivers tell them.

Your answer is UK-specific, and skips lightly over the international wodge of references I posted upthread. The world's international authority on public transport and a whole bunch of other people agree with me.

The issue of whether the taxi closed shop should give way to private-hire drivers hailed using smartphone apps is a vexed but separate one.

Similarly, Liverpool's astounding problems with deregulated bus companies have no bearing on whether, other things being equal, in public transport theory, taxis should use "bus lanes" that are anything other than fully dedicated rights of way for buses only, as in Bus Rapid Transit, which is perhaps best thought of as an aboveground metro system without rails.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:

In most, maybe all, large UK cities the taxi industry is in the control of organised crime: the drug runners, the gun runners, the people who run the city's prostitution business.

And your evidence for this remarkable statement is...?
I have spent the last 30 years working in law enforcement in a large UK city.

So my tongue-in-cheek comment upthread was not so wide of the mark, then?

If you frame the problem thus, the best thing to do would be to ban taxi services altogether, with the two-birds-with-one-stone benefit of removing organised crime's wheels and as a bonus, removing all those pesky taxis from bus lanes.

Seen thus, the issue of whether it makes sense to have taxis sharing bus lanes from a public transport theory point of view goes right out of the window.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Similarly, Liverpool's astounding problems with deregulated bus companies have no bearing on whether, other things being equal, in public transport theory, taxis should use "bus lanes" that are anything other than fully dedicated rights of way for buses only, as in Bus Rapid Transit, which is perhaps best thought of as an aboveground metro system without rails.

No, but the problems with deregulated bus companies (which may be 'astounding' but are no more so in Liverpool than anywhere else in the UK outside London) show up the basic problem of urban transport in the UK which is lack of co-ordination, lack of long-term vision, criminal neglect of resources. Liverpool has the potential for a comprehensive metro system; there are two disused rail tunnels which could revolutionise city transport at a fraction of the cost of Crossrail. But no-one is in a position to grasp the nettle except national politicians who can only see as far as the next election.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But no-one is in a position to grasp the nettle except national politicians who can only see as far as the next election.

Or can't see further than the M25.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

How about share taxis? I've always had a soft spot for them since discovering the Dolmuş.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

London has trams from Wimbledon to East Croydon, and overhead railways for some of the DLR routes, and a cable car to cross the Thames, but the cycle routes are "interesting", the C2 is not a joy and a delight and I agree with no_prophet that joint bike and bus lanes are not wonderful.

(Sheffield and Nottingham also have trams, and the Nottingham tram service is being run out towards Derby, but is held up around HS2)

I'd also query the drug and prostitution racket assertion for taxi cabs in London having mentally reviewed the cabbies I know. It may be true for some, but I can't believe all taxis are tied into crime.

Isn't the deregulation of the buses another legacy of Thatcher?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Isn't the deregulation of the buses another legacy of Thatcher?

There's a difference between deregulation in the sense of opening up to competition and a free-for-all.

In France most large town and city bus services are run by private operators (e.g. giants such as Keolis), but under the terms of their agreement they still have to comply with obligations such as designated routes, stops, etc. and agree a fare structure with the territory in which they operate. If this is markedly different in the UK, I'd be interested to see some evidence.

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Isn't the deregulation of the buses another legacy of Thatcher?

Yes it is (1985's Transport Act). Local bus operator from Aberdeen was privatized and gradually transformed into the First Group (a huge transport company). First buses are just awful right now, additionally public transport in Aberdeen as a whole is fairly bad.

Funnily enough there were trams in Aberdeen until 1958, when council retired all trams in a huge fire. Interesting way of doing things.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Poor though bus services are now, if it's possible to imagine such a thing, the situation before deregulation in 1985 was even worse.

The system was a stitch up. The unions supported it because it meant a stable job market for their members. The operators loved it. They were large, stodgy and complacent because they could keep anyone else from muscling in on their patches. The position on route licences was so rigid and antiquarian that they always had an answer to any of the public as to why nothing could ever be changed or improved.

The public meanwhile got a crud service because it wasn't being run for their benefit. They were the last group of people that anyone involved in the industry was in the least bit interested in - something which is still a fundamental problem.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

In France most large town and city bus services are run by private operators (e.g. giants such as Keolis), but under the terms of their agreement they still have to comply with obligations such as designated routes, stops, etc. and agree a fare structure with the territory in which they operate. If this is markedly different in the UK, I'd be interested to see some evidence.

It is very different, except for London, where TfL has the same sort of overall control as seems to be the case in France. Elsewhere you have the crazy system of rival companies running competing buses along the same routes, with different fares structures and incompatible tickets. Companies cherry pick the popular routes (our nearest bus stop has a bus every three minutes or so, mostly half-empty), while areas away from the major arteries have to make do with infrequent services funded by the limited amount the local authority has available for subsidy.

On the other hand, most rural small towns and many villages in England and Wales (not sure about Scotland) have at least some form of public transport. I get the impression that rural buses in France are as rare as hen's teeth.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
In most, maybe all, large UK cities the taxi industry is in the control of organised crime: the drug runners, the gun runners, the people who run the city's prostitution business.
And your evidence for this remarkable statement is...?
I have spent the last 30 years working in law enforcement in a large UK city.

Well then, don't keep us in suspense - what's your evidence? With that much experience, you must have access to very convincing evidence indeed.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
MrWaters - just to be clear, are you opposed to any solutions outside of more buses/bus lanes, or bike lanes?
Considering the costs and how the current tram projects worked out. I do not believe that trains/trams are cost effective. Maybe at some point in the future, however right now the costs to the taxpayer and necessary road closures, make their construction undesirable. At the end trams work almost identically to buses (example is Warsaw with both means of transport).

See Toronto, Canada, and you will learn the difference between a bus and streetcars. [Smile]

Streetcars (trams in other jurisdictions) have 2.5 times the passenger capacity of buses and twice the acceleration too. Electric motors accelerate faster than diesel engines do. Plus there is the advantage of the electric running (from nuclear and hydro in Ontario).

Of course, the limiting factor is traffic speed, but that's not an issue for streetcars as they are designed to run in medium-to-high density areas that need more capacity than buses but which don't merit a subway line.

Toronto has expanded its system (it never scrapped it in the first place, it's been in place for 120 years) in the last 20 years and the new services have been popular, well received and revenue-positive.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

Despite the fact I am now very far from it I grew up in Nottingham and have always found their transport system to be integrated and well thought out. I can't imagine the nightmare that 4+ bus companies competing in the same area must cause for commuters.

On another note I am a cyclist, probably commute about 200km a month aside from little trips elsewhere. I really firmly believe in dedicated cycling infrastructure to reduce accidents between drivers and cyclists. I cycle up and down a bit of a blackspot for it every time I go to and from work and it can be a bit hairy. Christchurch has an awesome oppurtunity to put in some world class facilities. I hope it seizes it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Elsewhere you have the crazy system of rival companies running competing buses along the same routes, with different fares structures and incompatible tickets.

Who is this supposed to benefit, and why does it persist? Don't blame the EU, because we're in the EU here and don't have anything like that.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

It's the glorious free market, darling. Competition always benefits the customer- hadn't you heard?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Well, darling, in our version of the free market as it applies to public transport, and in my limited understanding of it, operators compete for a public transport tender put out by the local authority.

The tender includes various requirements (which I assume include at least broad details of fares, subsidies, routes, and performance levels) and penalties for non-performance. It comes up for renewal every few years.

I'm not sure about the details of the business model. I'm pretty sure it will be subsidised in almost every case by the local authority, but they probably figure they benefit indirectly by helping the city-centre retail economy and encouraging people to locate to the city because it has a good transport network.

I'd be interested to see some actual links to how the policy you describe is implemented by UK local authorities.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
On the other hand, most rural small towns and many villages in England and Wales (not sure about Scotland) have at least some form of public transport.

Yes, all the bits of Scotland that I know have buses. Bus travel is free for the elderly, but fares are costed on the basis of single commuters. They're an expensive mode of traffic for families.

It's been an issue for our nearest food bank - the bus fare to get to the food bank, added to the infrequency of the bus services discourages people from accessing it. I assume that's an issue for many rural food banks? Our food bank is recruiting volunteers with cars who can collect food parcels and deliver them.

One church is a nearby town has been speaking to poor families about school holiday issues and the cost of bus fares has been identified as a problem. A parent wanting to take 2 children to the nearest cinema is facing £15 of bus fares to do so, even before the cost of the tickets. There are a whole range of free cultural activities aimed at children in the school holidays (museums / entertainment in public parks / events in libraries) which low income families feel are inaccessible to them because of the cost of the bus fares to get there.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Despite the fact I am now very far from it I grew up in Nottingham and have always found their transport system to be integrated and well thought out.

Do you remember the Nottingham Omnibus that tried to muscle in on NCT's routes? That was quite fun while it lasted.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, darling, in our version of the free market as it applies to public transport, and in my limited understanding of it, operators compete for a public transport tender put out by the local authority.

The tender includes various requirements (which I assume include at least broad details of fares, subsidies, routes, and performance levels) and penalties for non-performance. It comes up for renewal every few years.

I'm not sure about the details of the business model. I'm pretty sure it will be subsidised in almost every case by the local authority, but they probably figure they benefit indirectly by helping the city-centre retail economy and encouraging people to locate to the city because it has a good transport network.

I'd be interested to see some actual links to how the policy you describe is implemented by UK local authorities.

Ah yes, but you are in IIRC France, where they cling to this crazy idea that the State is there to ensure that things work for the general good of the public, instead of understanding that if you just let big companies make pots of money for themselves this will by a process which no-one can quite describe be in the best interests of their customers.
BTW it always amuses me to see that some London bus routes are operated by a subsidiary of RATP. It seems that state operation is quite acceptable to the free market ideologues, provided it isn't British state operation...

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW it always amuses me to see that some London bus routes are operated by a subsidiary of RATP.

Yes, and unless I'm mistaken the routes are put out to tender, to a single operator, every 5 years. I can't see how multiple operators on a single (urban) route can be in anyone's interest, including that of the operators. I'm still interested to hear of a specific example.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I'll get my daughter to respond on the Nottingham bus routes when she's back.

Out here, outside the TfL area (tube goes the other direction, into London), the bus route to the nearest big post war new town has been run in my memory - so last 15 years by :

Arriva operating a monopoly half hourly buses, hourly through here to other main towns, no alternative routes to villages available, second bus company operating a bus from another neighbouring town to the hospital and back every 2 hours - I commuted on these routes for 4 or 5 years before giving up and cycling;
Arriva plus small bus companies in direct competition; the other smaller bus companies taking routes through the villages or slightly different routes; Several routes deliberately undercutting Arriva, but bus companies going out of business and routes not covered at short notice;
Arriva pulling out entirely after becoming very unreliable - resulting in an ever changing mixed bag of buses from different operators and no reliable routes to anywhere but the main new town.
steam railway runs additional weekend buses to access the railway and these get used as routes between otherwise inaccessible places

The local big town has the cinema, sixth form college, shopping centre and hospital with A&E and maternity ward, so access there is pretty important for most people. The only route by public transport is bus.

If there's a tube strike the alternatives by public transport aren't great and need checking every time to see what's available.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Back in the early days of deregulation, Stagecoach had a nasty habit of bringing in a fleet of "white buses" which it ran on existing routes just in front of established services. This put many "corporation" networks out of business.

I suspect this may not be legal now; however in our town First have been making predatory moves on existing routes, trying to steal trade on the "best" routes, This isn't illegal but it costs money. As a result our local (non-competitive) route has just been taken off entirely, and a senior official at the company says that one of the reasons is this "bus war" (the other is the insufficient remuneration given by the Government for the OAP bus pass scheme).

We had an amusing thing here a couple of years ago. One route ran, as a commercial operation, hourly on Sundays. However it was subsidized by the County Council after 6pm. The company (First) withdrew the "main" service, but the evening service ran on, virtually empty, for some months.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It always amuses me to see that some London bus routes are operated by a subsidiary of RATP. It seems that state operation is quite acceptable to the free market ideologues, provided it isn't British state operation...

Sure, and some of our railways are operated by Deutsche Bahn or Netherlands State Railways.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Back in the early days of deregulation, Stagecoach had a nasty habit of bringing in a fleet of "white buses" which it ran on existing routes just in front of established services.

I just can't understand how anyone could have allowed the loophole making this possible or thought it was a good idea.

(Mind you, when our kids were learning to drive, if they inadvertently used the bus lane one instructor would make them stop at bus stops and offer to pick up waiting passengers).

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Actually- just to show that I do realise that the public sector can behave as badly as the private- Cardiff Bus (municipally owned, and pretty dire) adopted similar tactics to see off competition about ten years ago. But I don't advocate South Walian local government as a model for anything. Herbert Morrison's LCC, on the other hand...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Back in the early days of deregulation, Stagecoach had a nasty habit of bringing in a fleet of "white buses" which it ran on existing routes just in front of established services.
I just can't understand how anyone could have allowed the loophole making this possible or thought it was a good idea.

(Mind you, when our kids were learning to drive, if they inadvertently used the bus lane one instructor would make them stop at bus stops and offer to pick up waiting passengers).

It was very much the thing in the late 1980's/early 1990's. I remember it distinctly around Lincoln where the newcomers would cherry-pick routes then run maybe as little as two minutes ahead of the Lincolnshire buses. It got dangerous at times with buses overtaking to get passengers.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can't see how multiple operators on a single (urban) route can be in anyone's interest, including that of the operators. I'm still interested to hear of a specific example.

I believe that Manchester, in the early days of deregulation, had one of the craziest examples of this. I can only speak first hand about our own local bus route, in Liverpool, which at one point was operated by three rival companies, including one cowboy operation . Now the 'big two' (Arriva and Stagecoach) have come to some sort of agreement and run a complementary service accepting each other's tickets. I can't understand why this couldn't be done by central planning in the first place.

And by what crazy logic or ideology is it acceptable for state-owned transport companies from other countries to run services in this country, while refusing to countenance our own? (The worst example - getting away from buses I'm afraid - is East Coast Trains currently run, because private companies have failed, by a state-owned company which is barred from applying for the long-term franchise.)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It got dangerous at times with buses overtaking to get passengers.

These Britons are crazy.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Bristol had similar incidents of the main bus company trying to run its rivals off the road by its buses overtaking and racing to stops to get the passengers.

The best example was of a company that competed so well that First Bus eventually offered a lot of money to the other firm if only it would sign something to say that it would never compete again. Mr. X duly signed and took the bribe.

A month later, Mrs. X had the buses renamed and continued to compete - so much so that First Bus has withdrawn any services which operate in Mrs. X's area.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can't see how multiple operators on a single (urban) route can be in anyone's interest, including that of the operators. I'm still interested to hear of a specific example.

I think it works out pretty well for the passengers. Not only do they have more buses per hour running on their route, but they also have a variety of fares to choose from. Compare that to a situation where there are fewer buses per hour, and the one company that runs them has the ability to force you to pay whatever they want because it's not like you can go anywhere else.

A specific example? The number 11 bus route in Birmingham used to be a byword for sloppy timekeeping and a nightmare for anyone who had to get to their destination within a set time. Drivers would routinely stop to read the paper or have a smoke when they were supposed to be getting people to work, because what was anyone going to do about it - there weren't any other ways of getting around available to us. The local authority-funded company who was running it then are still pretty much as bad, but now there is another company running buses up and down the route, at a lower price and with a more reliable timetable. It's made my journey to work so much more predictable, and it's slowly making the other company realise that it's got to improve or it's going to keep on losing passengers.

So we get more buses, and the percentage of them that are actually run well and to time is increasing thanks to the competition. Where's the downside?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Out here in the more rural hinterlands it's been very mixed and what has happened to buses and routes is a real pain. One of my (London based) students really couldn't understand why I have no idea what bus does what route now, because they keep changing. I could tell him the routes and options ten years ago and again two years ago when I checked them for something, but the buses I see now are all different again and if I want to use them I have to check.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So we get more buses, and the percentage of them that are actually run well and to time is increasing thanks to the competition. Where's the downside?

Of several, the first one that comes to mind is that the service (or lack of it) appears to be governed by the profit motive alone.

Next time somebody asks me why as a native Brit I feel like a foreigner in my country of origin, I'm going to use this example.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

We had problems with unreliable busses here, but instead of privatizing them, the city put doodads on each bus that tell where it is at any particular time. This means that people can now check bus locations with an app, but it also means that drivers who stop to get McDonalds have to explain to their boss why their bus stopped at McD's for 7 minutes. Major improvement.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So we get more buses, and the percentage of them that are actually run well and to time is increasing thanks to the competition. Where's the downside?
Of several, the first one that comes to mind is that the service (or lack of it) appears to be governed by the profit motive alone.

So? What that means in practice is the company that offers the best service to passengers will get the most people travelling with it, and will therefore make the biggest profit. So both companies are deperately trying to provide a better service than the other, and the quality of the services on offer is shooting up.

Contrast to when there's only one company. There's no competition, so passengers have to use it. No incentive to improve, or even to stay at the same standard. No need to put on extra buses in times of peak demand. Things just get worse and worse.

Speaking as a passenger, I know which of the two systems I prefer.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So we get more buses

No, you get more buses on routes and at times that are profitable. That's not enough to encourage the modal transfer bus lanes and the like are designed to encourage.

quote:
Contrast to when there's only one company. There's no competition, so passengers have to use it. No incentive to improve, or even to stay at the same standard. No need to put on extra buses in times of peak demand.

There is if you build a system of performance targets and penalties into the tender offer, as well as specify a pricing policy. If the company doesn't stay up to scratch for the duration of the tender, they will stand less chance the next time round.

As far as I can see in your system, the operator has no obligations at all, so you have no actual guarantee they will be there from one day to the next if they suddenly decide there's more money to be made elsewhere.

It seems to me that there's plenty of room to keep the competitive spirit alive at the tender stage - and run routes at a financial loss for social or environmental reasons - without the free-for-all on the routes you seem to be describing.

[ 08. August 2014, 16:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

What also happens, as almost always in this kind of business, is that each company does its damnedest to drive the other one out of business. Businesses may claim to relish competition, but very few will prefer competition to a monopoly.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What that means in practice is the company that offers the best service to passengers will get the most people travelling with it, and will therefore make the biggest profit.

That's assuming that there are enough potential passengers to make things profitable. This model won't work in rural areas, nor in city areas where you need to have a regular bus service all day but where demand at certain times is low (yet essential for those people who use it at those times).

Up to a point the more lucrative routes may be allowed to subsidise the loss-making ones, but that won't last long for a company which places "profit" above "service". Under the "bad old" regime - and I'm not saying that it was perfect - the City or Rural Council tried to make sure the buses ran according to the needs of the community, not the desires of the shareholders. Today a vital service can be cut almost on a whim, although there is a legal process to negotiate.

In the early days of London privatisation, the routes and service frequency were still determined by London Transport (as they still are). Several small companies, sensing quick profits, tendered for the contracts and then put on clapped-out (i.e. cheap) old buses. Service reliability collapsed.

Eventually those companies went out of business, the big boys came in, and things settled down (I believe today's TfL can stipulate service quality as well as everything else). Today's London service is the best it's been for decades, but that's not the result of privatisation. Things like increased population, greater mobility, the Congestion Charge, and good connectivity all have their part to play.

As do ... BUS LANES!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Under the "bad old" regime - and I'm not saying that it was perfect - the City or Rural Council tried to make sure the buses ran according to the needs of the community, not the desires of the shareholders. Today a vital service can be cut almost on a whim, although there is a legal process to negotiate.

Exactly. The transport authority (what, in the conurbations, used to be known as Passenger Transport Executives) used to run a comprehensive and co-ordinated system of buses, dovetailing in many areas with train services. Here in Merseyside many through buses between some of the peripheral suburbs and the city centre were replaced by local shuttles connecting with the much faster train service, with through ticketing.

Since bus privatisation all this has gone to pot, though ironically the local rail system is now more closely overseen and directed by the transport authority. Bus companies are under no obligation to run unprofitable though vital services, and the buck has been passed to the authority which is forced to pay them to run buses in the evenings and off the major routes. In the old days the unified company cross-subsidised, which benefited everybody. Now the only winners are the fat cats of Arriva, Stagecoach and the like.

I'm amused to see Londoners complaining about a minimum bus fare of £1.45. Here it is (on Arriva, not sure about the others) £2.20. Whereas in most continental cities you can get just about anywhere for about €1.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Standard fare here in Cardiff is £1.80- and that's a municipal company, although it does combine the worst of both worlds: private sector monopoly 'sod the public' with South Walian Labourist imperviousness to what people might actually want.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Listening to some people talk about transport is like trying to do chemistry based on a personal preference for big molecules.

One traffic lane has a capacity of around 1800 cars per hour (= a car every two seconds). Given the low average occupancy for commuting journeys, that might be around 2000 people per hour. If your buses are running every minute with an average 50 people on board, that's 3000 people per hour and a bus lane is a more efficient use of the space. Conversely, if you have a bus every five minutes with only 20 people on board, that's only 240 people per hour... You get the idea.

The right answers in transport are location-specific; any blanket policy is a bad idea somewhere.

Traffic lights are really useful for some junctions; for others the traffic flows much better when there's a power cut and the lights aren't working...

Arguably there's no such thing as a good transport policy.

Best wishes,

Russ

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0