Bus Routes Lost/ Changed Due To Light Rail

[Statto]

The 54 used to go direct to Croydon Town Centre. I believe there was a lot of vitriol when this was planed to be cut to Elmers End, and often it's quicker staying on the bus rather than being forced to change.

 

[johncrossley]

The 54 used to go direct to Croydon Town Centre, i believe there was a lot of vitriol when this was planed to be cut to Elmers End, & often it's quicker staying on the bus rather than being forced to change

So does that mean no direct service should ever be cut? What if the buses saved by cutting the route can be used to improve services elsewhere? Or at least help to avoid other services being cut?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Eh? It is very common for buses to terminate at the edge of cities at outlying metro/tram stations in mainland Europe.

What if you were going from somewhere on the 54 route to somewhere other than Croydon town centre? Then you would have to change anyway. You can't seriously expect everywhere to be connected by a direct bus.

No, you can't expect everywhere to have a direct bus to cope with every journey permutation. Similarly, there are plenty of buses that enter the centre of European cities whether it be Berlin or Paris because there is a requirement to serve areas outside of the Metro/Tram system. It's not a binary world and so it's a case of what is actually right depending on circumstances.

It's why it was sensible to terminate the vast majority of Washington to Newcastle journeys at Heworth Metro but keep a few running through to Newcastle to appropriately cater for those who needed them, whereas the Leam Lane to Gateshead truncation was less so. We should do what is best for the customer and balancing it with cost considerations (cost benefit analysis) rather than being driven by some sort of ideological purity of any persuasion.

 

[johncrossley]

We should do what is best for the customer and balancing it with cost considerations (cost benefit analysis) rather than being driven by some sort of ideological purity of any persuasion.

We should do what will lead to the fewest car journeys within the overall budget available.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

We should do what will lead to the fewest car journeys within the overall budget available.

Balance - follow that path so assiduously, you'd have very little in terms of buses in the provinces (or a number of rail services too)

 

[johncrossley]

Balance - follow that path so assiduously, you'd have very little in terms of buses in the provinces (or a number of rail services too)

Can you explain your working? I can only see this being the case if you are working on the basis of minimal budget, and therefore minimal buses. But today's budget is scarce as it is and there are still quite a few buses running, albeit carrying not many passengers who own a car.

 

[Farningham]

So does that mean no direct service should ever be cut? What if the buses saved by cutting the route can be used to improve services elsewhere? Or at least help to avoid other services being cut?

The destruction of the exisiting through service on the 54 was a serious diminution in quality of provision to anyone disabled or with a pram or with anything heavy - the bus terminated one side of the station, the tram on the other, requiring climbing a footbridge over the track to interchange (no lifts, no ramps). That still remains the case today.
It might have been better to have cut the 54 to Beckenham Junction station forecourt instead, where interchange can be had between buses and trains on the level.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Can you explain your working? I can only see this being the case if you are working on the basis of minimal budget, and therefore minimal buses. But today's budget is scarce as it is and there are still quite a few buses running, albeit carrying not many passengers who own a car.

Because, quite simply, if you to pursue an over zealous, non nuanced approach where you get most bang for your buck, you wouldn't have a trains trundling on branch lines or be subsidising the bus that passes my house, usually with (at most) half a dozen pensioners on a journey.

 

[johncrossley]

Because, quite simply, if you to pursue an over zealous, non nuanced approach where you get most bang for your buck, you wouldn't have a trains trundling on branch lines or be subsidising the bus that passes my house, usually with (at most) half a dozen pensioners on a journey.

I didn't realise you were talking about rural areas when you said 'provinces'. Cities in the provinces currently get the worst deal compared to both London and rural areas. The priority should be improving buses in urban areas outside London sufficiently so that people will leave their cars at home.

 

[Busaholic]

Eh? It is very common for buses to terminate at the edge of cities at outlying metro/tram stations in mainland Europe.

What if you were going from somewhere on the 54 route to somewhere other than Croydon town centre? Then you would have to change anyway. You can't seriously expect everywhere to be connected by a direct bus.

But they usually make sure the trams and metros are as close to the buses as possible. I'm not suggesting everywhere is connected to everywhere else by a direct bus: I'm suggesting that the passenger who has boarded a 54 in Beckenham High Street (perhaps having changed from a 227) to go into Croydon for years on end is not going to be very impressed with being turfed off at Elmers End to a non-connecting tram, nor the Orpington or Locks Bottom passenger who has abandoned the car and Croydon's rapacious parking charges to make use of the increasingly popular direct bus, and suddenly finds it's been truncated. It's not even that the tram follows the same route into Croydon as the 353 did.The abandonment of the T31 and T32 'feeder' routes proves to me that the Addington Interchange is not popular with locals, and the tram should have continued into the New Addington Estate, but then we'd probably still be waiting for its opening....

 

[johncrossley]

nor the Orpington or Locks Bottom passenger who has abandoned the car and Croydon's rapacious parking charges to make use of the increasingly popular direct bus, and suddenly finds it's been truncated.

You are assuming that car users will not connect from a bus to a tram. That can't be true, given that you commonly have to do this in European cities yet they achieve huge ridership. If indeed it is impossible to get people to change vehicles, then you will only ever get a tiny proportion of people out of their car as only a tiny proportion of journeys can be made by direct vehicle.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I didn't realise you were talking about rural areas when you said 'provinces'. Cities in the provinces currently get the worst deal compared to both London and rural areas. The priority should be improving buses in urban areas outside London sufficiently so that people will leave their cars at home.

It is most pronounced in the most rural areas but you get my point. If one slavishly goes for bang for buck, as in any ideological purity, it will fail to observe the requirements and needs of many. After all, were TfWM to focus all spending on Birmingham and Coventry as it had the greatest perceived benefit at the expense of Wolverhampton, then that would be incendiary. As ever, there's a balance to be struck.

Your point about the spend in provincial urban areas (as opposed to London or shire counties) is true enough but that wasn't what we were discussing. Mind you, given the way Cornwall Council have been spending their money on bus services, I'd be concerned how well the cash is spent!

 

[Ianno87]

The 54 used to go direct to Croydon Town Centre. I believe there was a lot of vitriol when this was planed to be cut to Elmers End, and often it's quicker staying on the bus rather than being forced to change.

Now that 21 years have passed, people seem to have accepted it.

 

[McSpud]

The only Lothian route that has been directly impacted by the Edinburgh Tram, from my memory, is the X48.
This was an often changed route with the primary purpose of serving Ingliston Park And Ride to the city Centre via Corstorphine.

Once the new part of the line opens via Leith I would expect more changes to bus routes due to the change in capacity on Leith Walk.

 

[Busaholic]

Now that 21 years have passed, people seem to have accepted it.

Just because there are no demonstrations on the street doesn't mean that people old enough to remember the connection don't regret the decision to axe it.

 

[Oveloel]

The only Lothian route that has been directly impacted by the Edinburgh Tram, from my memory, is the X48.
This was an often changed route with the primary purpose of serving Ingliston Park And Ride to the city Centre via Corstorphine.

Once the new part of the line opens via Leith I would expect more changes to bus routes due to the change in capacity on Leith Walk.

Indeed, especially with a tram paralleling it Easter Road's current service levels will become major overkill.

 

[Ken H]

Slightly off topic, but with the electrification of the Leeds/Bradford - Ilkley line, many buses have gone. No Bradford - Otley buses (till recently when the A3 was extended from Leeds Airport to Otley. And still non via White Cross) and no Bradford - Ilkley buses. And no Leeds - Ilkley buses via Guiseley.

 

[tbtc]

How much of the reduction in routes and frequency of buses in Sheffield is down to the introduction of the tram though, in the mid 1980s bus fares were about 2p per journey and so the buses were rammed, nowadays fares are much, much higher and commercially operated in the main by the not so reliable First Group?

The tram was opened between (I think) 1994-1996, so I've tried to use 1990s frequencies to make a fare comparison - obviously a lot of the Sheffield network wasn't going to be sustainable once passenger had to pay "proper" fares

In the case of Tyne and Wear, it was such as massive undertaking in early 1980s that it's hard to summarise all the changes that happened

Were the services (that were reinstated) reinstated in one big-bang? Or was it a case of links slowly being reintroduced once the companies were privatised?

Also, what (in your opinion) was the biggest "lost" link that wasn't subsequently reintroduced?

 

[Ianno87]

Just because there are no demonstrations on the street doesn't mean that people old enough to remember the connection don't regret the decision to axe it.

Although that is to a large extent placated by free passes, plus the Hopper fare these days, so paying twice is avoided.

 

[Deerfold]

Slightly off topic, but with the electrification of the Leeds/Bradford - Ilkley line, many buses have gone. No Bradford - Otley buses (till recently when the A3 was extended from Leeds Airport to Otley. And still non via White Cross) and no Bradford - Ilkley buses. And no Leeds - Ilkley buses via Guiseley.

Indeed, before the rail line improvements there was at least:

650/1 Bradford - Guiseley - Ilkley 2bph (1bph Sun)
652/3/4 Bradford - Guiseley - Otley (2bph) - Harrogate (1bph) (1bph Sun)
655/755 Bradford - Guiseley - Leeds (2bph) (1bph Sun

with other infrequent routes and some hours with extra buses on these routes

There's a remnant of the 655/755 between Guiseley and Leeds (route 27), the more recent X52 runs between Otley and Harrogate, but there's now just 1 bus an hour between Bradford and Guiseley (and lots of other places which lost their route(s) to Bradford).

A3 Bradford - Guiseley - Leeds Bradford Airport - Otley (1bph including Sundays)

Although that is to a large extent placated by free passes, plus the Hopper fare these days, so paying twice is avoided.

A handful of routes that were truncated (including the 54 and 130) and the Tram feeder T-routes had through fares from the opening of the Croydon.
I used to analyse bus data at London buses and helpfully, some routes always needed a nudge as some systems stored the routes as T54, T130.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Were the services (that were reinstated) reinstated in one big-bang? Or was it a case of links slowly being reintroduced once the companies were privatised?

Also, what (in your opinion) was the biggest "lost" link that wasn't subsequently reintroduced?

It's really hard to say but the re-extension of services across the bridge to Newcastle was done at d-day. Of course, there were many services that existed before Metro that would never come back as the Metro is so much quicker and even with a change, it was much better. It was just the idea of a 25 min direct journey vs. a 35 min two stage journey with a change that was silly with services from some parts of Gateshead.

There's a remnant of the 655/755 between Guiseley and Leeds (route 27), the more recent X52 runs between Otley and Harrogate, but there's now just 1 bus an hour between Bradford and Guiseley (and lots of other places which lost their route(s) to Bradford).

I recall having an animated conversation on this forum about the Bradford to Guiseley corridor with someone who seemed to feel that the reason was largely down to First's ineptitude rather than the impact of trains. It's fair to make First partly culpable but, and wrestling this back on topic, it's all fairly simple.

If you provide a faster, convenient alternative, why would you not expect public transport users to migrate from bus to (light) rail? That switch is much easier than leaving your car on the drive.

It explains much of the decline in bus services in North Manchester, for example, as has been discussed many times that contributes to much of the bus patronage decline cited as a justification for franchising - please let's not go back to that discussion as to that subject!

However, as we've seen, even BRT schemes like Leigh to Manchester will abstract trade from slow bus to fast bus. However, and this is where there were some silly issues in Tyne & Wear.....

Spending 5 mins on a feeder bus, 5 mins interchange, then a 20 min metro ride into town seems ok
Spending 20 mins on a feeder bus, 5 mins interchange, then 5 mins metro ride just seems ridiculous

----even though the timings are the same.

 

[johncrossley]

Spending 5 mins on a feeder bus, 5 mins interchange, then a 20 min metro ride into town seems ok
Spending 20 mins on a feeder bus, 5 mins interchange, then 5 mins metro ride just seems ridiculous

----even though the timings are the same.

However you are only looking at the effect on one corridor. The main reason for cutting the bus route short is to save resources. This means you can improve buses elsewhere with those cost savings. Even with the much derided pre-deregulation Gateshead interchange, there was a lot of savings in operating costs compared to post-deregulation because of sheer volume of buses running across that bridge. And does running a lot of extra buses across the bridge mean you get more people out of their cars compared to if you had spent that money running buses on routes where there is no metro? If you look at bus maps in other countries you can see similar instances of buses terminating tantalisingly close to the city centre, or just running tangentially to the city centre without actually penetrating it. Some British people would probably visit those cities and think it is stupid, because they are used to most, if not all, buses going right into the city centre.

 

[Ianno87]

However you are only looking at the effect on one corridor. The main reason for cutting the bus route short is to save resources. This means you can improve buses elsewhere with those cost savings. Even with the much derided pre-deregulation Gateshead interchange, there was a lot of savings in operating costs compared to post-deregulation because of sheer volume of buses running across that bridge. And does running a lot of extra buses across the bridge mean you get more people out of their cars compared to if you had spent that money running buses on routes where there is no metro? If you look at bus maps in other countries you can see similar instances of buses terminating tantalisingly close to the city centre, or just running tangentially to the city centre without actually penetrating it. Some British people would probably visit those cities and think it is stupid, because they are used to most, if not all, buses going right into the city centre.

In some cities it will depend whether or not the "centre" is a single point, and relative congestion to get all the way there.

In London (for example), you would get a bus to somewhere like Finsbury Park or Vauxhall, and then tube the rest of the way there.

 

[317 forever]

The only Lothian route that has been directly impacted by the Edinburgh Tram, from my memory, is the X48.
This was an often changed route with the primary purpose of serving Ingliston Park And Ride to the city Centre via Corstorphine.

Once the new part of the line opens via Leith I would expect more changes to bus routes due to the change in capacity on Leith Walk.

Route 12 has been curtailed at George Street with route 1 extended from Easter Road to Seafield. I doubt route 12 will return to Leith or Seafield once the tram opens. I would not be surprised if some further rationalisation occurs then.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

However you are only looking at the effect on one corridor.

Look at post #33 and you'll see that I said about Heworth being another corridor where it does work.

That they truncated the services at Gateshead Metro to save resources is obvious. That when de-reg came and bus services were restored and passengers preferred to stay on the bus in preference to the Metro was also obvious.

 

[tbtc]

Look at post #33 and you'll see that I said about Heworth being another corridor where it does work.

That they truncated the services at Gateshead Metro to save resources is obvious. That when de-reg came and bus services were restored and passengers preferred to stay on the bus in preference to the Metro was also obvious.

Similar thing here in Sheffield.

People were happy to give up their bus service from Stocksbridge into Sheffield for a tram feeder service - people weren't happy to give up their bus service from Stannington or Killamarsh into Sheffield for a tram feeder service - the local dynamics are a lot messier than the simplistic "one size fits all" policy that some would like to implement

It's really hard to say but the re-extension of services across the bridge to Newcastle was done at d-day. Of course, there were many services that existed before Metro that would never come back as the Metro is so much quicker and even with a change, it was much better. It was just the idea of a 25 min direct journey vs. a 35 min two stage journey with a change that was silly with services from some parts of Gateshead

What I find interesting in the example of Gateshead is that routes either run into Newcastle or don't... e.g. all the 53/54s run over the Tyne, none of the 93/94s do - so you either get a frequent service into Newcastle or not - there's not an approach of "every ten minutes into Gateshead, of which two or three per hour continue into Newcastle" - it's all or nothing. Maybe that's better/simpler than having long/short journeys on the same service, I don't know?

Then again, Gateshead is a bit of an oddity - in places like Glasgow/ Leeds/ London the south bank of the river is still part of the same city (and in the case of the river Trent, Nottingham City Transport operate south of the river even though it's beyond the city boundaries) - if history had been different, there would have been "cross city" services over the Tyne!

 

[DunsBus]

Similar thing here in Sheffield.

People were happy to give up their bus service from Stocksbridge into Sheffield for a tram feeder service - people weren't happy to give up their bus service from Stannington or Killamarsh into Sheffield for a tram feeder service - the local dynamics are a lot messier than the simplistic "one size fits all" policy that some would like to implement



What I find interesting in the example of Gateshead is that routes either run into Newcastle or don't... e.g. all the 53/54s run over the Tyne, none of the 93/94s do - so you either get a frequent service into Newcastle or not - there's not an approach of "every ten minutes into Gateshead, of which two or three per hour continue into Newcastle" - it's all or nothing. Maybe that's better/simpler than having long/short journeys on the same service, I don't know?

Then again, Gateshead is a bit of an oddity - in places like Glasgow/ Leeds/ London the south bank of the river is still part of the same city (and in the case of the river Trent, Nottingham City Transport operate south of the river even though it's beyond the city boundaries) - if history had been different, there would have been "cross city" services over the Tyne!

Newcastle Corporation, and later Tyneside/Tyne & Wear PTE, did operate into Gateshead. The PTE handed over its bus presence there to Northern in late-1981 when the Metro was extended south of the Tyne.

 

[johncrossley]

Look at post #33 and you'll see that I said about Heworth being another corridor where it does work.

That they truncated the services at Gateshead Metro to save resources is obvious. That when de-reg came and bus services were restored and passengers preferred to stay on the bus in preference to the Metro was also obvious.

Passengers on that corridor were supposed to be inconvenienced by the forced interchange. It was entirely intentional. The idea is that there should be an overall benefit to the network as a whole. With any transport scheme there are winners and losers. Reintroducing those direct buses simply meant other people lose out, despite being popularly made out to be a "no brainer".

 

[Megafuss]

Passengers on that corridor were supposed to be inconvenienced by the forced interchange. It was entirely intentional. The idea is that there should be an overall benefit to the network as a whole. With any transport scheme there are winners and losers. Reintroducing those direct buses simply meant other people lose out, despite being popularly made out to be a "no brainer".

I am just trying to imagine the reaction of forcing folk off the 21, 56, 57, 58 at Gateshead Interchange stand N on to an already struggling Metro system just to ride one stop in to Newcastle.....

If the Metro was every 2 minutes then I could see the argument, but it's every 6 minutes. Buses are arriving in Gateshead every 60 seconds. The Metro system today would not cope without buses going in to Newcastle

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Passengers on that corridor were supposed to be inconvenienced by the forced interchange. It was entirely intentional. The idea is that there should be an overall benefit to the network as a whole. With any transport scheme there are winners and losers. Reintroducing those direct buses simply meant other people lose out, despite being popularly made out to be a "no brainer".

We all know it was intentional. That was obvious. It has been discussed at length over the years.

However, it was patently the wrong thing to do, and no amount of shoulder shrugging and "swings and roundabouts" commentary changes that. There is a point where the cost benefit alters. That too is obvious.