Great Western Coffee Shop

All across the Great Western territory => Looking forward - after Coronavirus to 2045 => Topic started by: grahame on September 22, 2018, 02:49:36



Title: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: grahame on September 22, 2018, 02:49:36
A sidebar on a Sun article (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/7310926/chris-grayling-transport-secretary-moron-party/) about "Furious passengers on Govia and Northern Rail have been blocked from forming a new political party to oust the Transport Secretary".

Quote
ANGER at public transport is fuelling a rise in car dependency, an annual RAC poll says.

A third of drivers, a record high, say they are more reliant on their cars than a year earlier.

A little over a quarter said the same in 2017. One in four blamed a deterioration in bus and train services. Six in ten said they would drive less if the networks improved.

RAC chief engineer David Bizley said many people do not see public transport as a “viable alternative” to the car. He called for more investment to make it “reliable, frequent, comfortable and affordable”.

Bus and rail passenger trips both dropped last year, Department for Transport figures show.

Are we again in an age where a deterioration in bus and train services to the extent that it drives significant numbers of people away is an accepted / acceptable policy, or is it an unintended consequence of what's being going on with very different intent (or no intent at all)?


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: Lee on September 22, 2018, 08:17:09
I think what's happened with buses is a deliberate consequence of political policy. In the early days of the coalition in 2010, George Osborne's Treasury drew up lists of what they viewed as "wasteful spending" in terms of priority. £309 million in transport grants to local authorities, which councils used to subsidise socially necessary bus services, were deemed to be among the "most wasteful of all" and put on the very first list to be cut. This directly caused an immediate crisis in the provision of those kinds of bus services that continues to this day.

Rail is rather more complex to define in these terms. Since privatisation, administrations of all political colours, Network Rail and the TOCs have all had notable bouts of incompetency that have contributed to this, but you have to say that having a lot of incompetency all at once does tend to get you noticed...


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: broadgage on September 22, 2018, 11:16:22
Here in North Somerset, bus services have noticeably worsened.
Local employers have got fed up with staff turning up late due to bus problems, and almost all local job adverts now state "must have own transport"

Speaking more generally, I blame a lot of the problems on new housing developments that have no effective public transport provision. Residents of such estates therefore have to drive, often needing multiple cars per household.

There seems to be a general view that new housing developments cant be served with public transport until a proven demand can be demonstrated. By which time of course every resident has purchased a car and got used to driving.
IMHO, new housing developments need an effective bus service from before the first resident moves in.

A comparison could be made with electricity supply. Who would build a new housing estate without an electricity supply ? No one ! Despite the fact that INITIAL electricity demand is probably insufficient to justify the costs.
Similar arguments apply to mains water or roads within the estate.
"here is your new home. Sorry about the walk across a muddy field to get to your front door. But don't worry, we will consider building a road once enough demand exists"


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: Fourbee on September 22, 2018, 11:49:39
Here in North Somerset, bus services have noticeably worsened.
Local employers have got fed up with staff turning up late due to bus problems, and almost all local job adverts now state "must have own transport"

I'd also be interested to know if existing staff at various companies have been "advised" to get a car.


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: eightonedee on September 22, 2018, 12:55:59
Quote

View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)
   
Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
« Reply #2 on: Today at 11:16:22 am »
Reply with quoteQuote
Here in North Somerset, bus services have noticeably worsened.
Local employers have got fed up with staff turning up late due to bus problems, and almost all local job adverts now state "must have own transport"

Speaking more generally, I blame a lot of the problems on new housing developments that have no effective public transport provision. Residents of such estates therefore have to drive, often needing multiple cars per household.

There seems to be a general view that new housing developments cant be served with public transport until a proven demand can be demonstrated. By which time of course every resident has purchased a car and got used to driving.
IMHO, new housing developments need an effective bus service from before the first resident moves in.

A comparison could be made with electricity supply. Who would build a new housing estate without an electricity supply ? No one ! Despite the fact that INITIAL electricity demand is probably insufficient to justify the costs.
Similar arguments apply to mains water or roads within the estate.
"here is your new home. Sorry about the walk across a muddy field to get to your front door. But don't worry, we will consider building a road once enough demand exists"

Actually for about a decade planning policy has resulted in most new developments of any size contributing financially or by way of physical infrastructure in larger schemes to non-car transport (although usually nothing for Rail related infrastructure), and require travel plans to be provided. The former may be by way of payments under planning agreements (the "Section 106 agreements" you hear about in the media) or as part of the infrastructure funded by a levy known as Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that some local planning authorities levy instead, or physically providing cycling facilities, bus stops, bus shelters, information etc, and ensuring that appropriate pedestrian routes to shops and schools are provided. The latter usually comprise information about public transport, walking routes and cycle facilities, sometimes with tickets or vouchers to each first buyer or tenant, possibly backed up by appointing someone to provide advice or to monitor use of different modes of transport on large schemes and an obligation to change what is offered if it does not demonstrate a "modal shift" away from private car use.

It cannot really be compared to usual mains services. You cannot occupy a new house unless it is connected to its sewer, water, electricity and other services. A new buyer or tenant will come with their own transport. The availability of transport may be a factor influencing where you buy or rent (look at the premium in house prices for areas with good rail connections), but for many it will be a case that the buyer/new tenant would like or needs a larger house/one near a new job or a school they would like their children to attend/to be near relatives, not - "can I move to a place with better bus services".

The problem is that we are trying to wind back the clock on nearly a century of getting used to private road transport. Whatever its downsides and problems, it also has flexibility that public transport cannot match.

I am not convinced that some of the planning measures (particularly travel plans) are particularly effective. What we need is more integrated infrastructure and general planning. Even when you have heavily subsidised bus transport, it needs to have sufficient volume of use to justify the expenditure, and dispersed settlement patterns mitigate against this. Use of some of the subsidised services in Oxfordshire that are no longer supported was often very low. My wife, who was involved in community transport for a while, went to a conference before the cuts when a speaker made the comment that it had been calculated that it would produce less carbon emissions of they stopped the buses in rural areas and bought each passenger a Landrover Freelander to use for the journeys instead! Concentrating development along current lines of communications helps, but immediately conflicts with  Green Belt policies in those towns and cities which have them.

Recognising these problems though, we are not going to encourage more to use public transport unless its a user-friendly experience, provided at convenient times serving the places that many want to get to and reliable. The continued increase in rail use until this year shows that passengers were prepared to pay. Is it now the cost or the quality of the service that has reversed this?    


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: Lee on September 22, 2018, 13:53:00
I am not convinced that some of the planning measures (particularly travel plans) are particularly effective. What we need is more integrated infrastructure and general planning. Even when you have heavily subsidised bus transport, it needs to have sufficient volume of use to justify the expenditure, and dispersed settlement patterns mitigate against this. Use of some of the subsidised services in Oxfordshire that are no longer supported was often very low. My wife, who was involved in community transport for a while, went to a conference before the cuts when a speaker made the comment that it had been calculated that it would produce less carbon emissions of they stopped the buses in rural areas and bought each passenger a Landrover Freelander to use for the journeys instead! Concentrating development along current lines of communications helps, but immediately conflicts with  Green Belt policies in those towns and cities which have them.

I'm afraid your wife was subjected to Ye Olde Freelander Chestnut, often trotted out to "prove" a pro-car factoid. Here's an example from 2006: (https://www.scotsman.com/future-scotland/tech/driving-causes-less-damage-per-head-than-under-used-rail-routes-1-1417871)

Quote from: The Scotsman
(then-Transport Secretary Douglas) Alexander said: "Here is an uncomfortable statistic. If 10 or fewer people travel in a Sprinter, it would be less environmentally damaging to give them each a Land Rover Freelander and tell them to drive.

"Be clear - that is not code for rail closures. Far from it. We want to see the railways grow. And in order to do so, we need to encourage better use on all parts of our railway."

Further on in the article:

Quote from: The Scotsman
South of the Border, services carrying fewer than 10 passengers per train include the Gunnislake to Plymouth line, with 4.4 passengers per train, the service between Blaenau Ffestiniog and Llandudno Junction at 6.9 travellers per journey, and the Falmouth Docks to Truro service which carries just 4.4 people per trip.

The environment could breathe more easily still if the passengers from any of these stations decided to share a car, even a gas-guzzling 4x4.

Should we, back in 2006, have pulled the plug on Gunnislake and Falmouth due to the perceived lack of volume of use, or on the flipside, should some of the innovative Community Rail-style promotion measures deployed on lines such as Gunnislake and Falmouth have been tried on those low-usage Oxfordshire bus routes?


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: Red Squirrel on September 22, 2018, 15:01:39
A sidebar on a Sun article (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/7310926/chris-grayling-transport-secretary-moron-party/) about "Furious passengers on Govia and Northern Rail have been blocked from forming a new political party to oust the Transport Secretary".

Quote
ANGER at public transport is fuelling a rise in car dependency, an annual RAC poll says.

A third of drivers, a record high, say they are more reliant on their cars than a year earlier.

A little over a quarter said the same in 2017. One in four blamed a deterioration in bus and train services. Six in ten said they would drive less if the networks improved.

RAC chief engineer David Bizley said many people do not see public transport as a “viable alternative” to the car. He called for more investment to make it “reliable, frequent, comfortable and affordable”.

Bus and rail passenger trips both dropped last year, Department for Transport figures show.

Are we again in an age where a deterioration in bus and train services to the extent that it drives significant numbers of people away is an accepted / acceptable policy, or is it an unintended consequence of what's being going on with very different intent (or no intent at all)?

I'd be much more interested to hear what an unbiased, properly-sampled study said rather than hearing the views of members of a motoring organisation. Having said that, clearly fewer people will be using buses in places where there are fewer of them. But when I hear an RAC spokesperson calling for better public transport, I can't help presuming they want that to make more room for their Mr Toads to poop-poop around in.

https://youtu.be/EfqPfq6t9NM






Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: broadgage on September 22, 2018, 16:31:14
Does say a sprinter actually burn 4 times as much fuel per mile as an SUV ? That seems surprising to me.
Estimating 30 miles to a gallon for the SUV, does a pacer really only go 7.5 miles on a gallon ?

I have heard, but can not substantiate, that the fuel consumption of a pacer is about the same as an SUV, and therefore that the pacer saves fuel with only two passengers.

Perhaps we need some new 2 car battery multiple units ?


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: TaplowGreen on September 22, 2018, 16:58:51
A sidebar on a Sun article (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/7310926/chris-grayling-transport-secretary-moron-party/) about "Furious passengers on Govia and Northern Rail have been blocked from forming a new political party to oust the Transport Secretary".

Quote
ANGER at public transport is fuelling a rise in car dependency, an annual RAC poll says.

A third of drivers, a record high, say they are more reliant on their cars than a year earlier.

A little over a quarter said the same in 2017. One in four blamed a deterioration in bus and train services. Six in ten said they would drive less if the networks improved.

RAC chief engineer David Bizley said many people do not see public transport as a “viable alternative” to the car. He called for more investment to make it “reliable, frequent, comfortable and affordable”.

Bus and rail passenger trips both dropped last year, Department for Transport figures show.

Are we again in an age where a deterioration in bus and train services to the extent that it drives significant numbers of people away is an accepted / acceptable policy, or is it an unintended consequence of what's being going on with very different intent (or no intent at all)?

I'd be much more interested to hear what an unbiased, properly-sampled study said rather than hearing the views of members of a motoring organisation. Having said that, clearly fewer people will be using buses in places where there are fewer of them. But when I hear an RAC spokesperson calling for better public transport, I can't help presuming they want that to make more room for their Mr Toads to poop-poop around in.

https://youtu.be/EfqPfq6t9NM






Other than the fact that it perhaps doesn't suit your narrative, what evidence do you have to suggest that the survey was biased or not properly sampled?


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: eightonedee on September 22, 2018, 17:16:18
Quote
Posted by: broadgage
Insert Quote
Does say a sprinter actually burn 4 times as much fuel per mile as an SUV ? That seems surprising to me.
Estimating 30 miles to a gallon for the SUV, does a pacer really only go 7.5 miles on a gallon ?

I have heard, but can not substantiate, that the fuel consumption of a pacer is about the same as an SUV, and therefore that the pacer saves fuel with only two passengers.

Perhaps we need some new 2 car battery multiple units ?

Those fuel consumption figures look pessimistic (for the SUV) and about right for the Pacer.

A typical modern diesel 2 litre SUV can manage 40MPG plus, has an engine of about 150 bhp moving a vehicle of 2 tonnes. A Pacer has two 225 bhp engines shifting about 50 tonnes of metal. Googling bus fuel consumption I found someone claiming 14 MPG as a good figure for a 29 seater midibus.

If you have a midibus tootling around rural Oxfordshire with an average of two passengers at any one time, and I think you can see how the "Freelander myth" came about!

All strengthens the case for electrification for me!


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: Red Squirrel on September 24, 2018, 13:40:11

Other than the fact that it perhaps doesn't suit your narrative, what evidence do you have to suggest that the survey was biased or not properly sampled?

I'm not sure what you imagine my narrative to be... do tell!

My point, the language of which I would have sought to make more watertight had I though it was in the least bit controversial, is that a survey of people who are labelled as 'motorists' is less interesting than a survey of, say, 'public transport users' in this context. But it does depend on what you are trying to find out, or to prove. If you were trying to find out if investments intended to achieve modal shift were effective, for example, then surely you'd ask a random sample of everyone?


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: LiskeardRich on September 24, 2018, 14:02:03
I’d use Them if they coincide with my shifts. They currently don’t! Maybe the cornwall frequency increase may change that!



Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: TaplowGreen on September 24, 2018, 17:01:24

Other than the fact that it perhaps doesn't suit your narrative, what evidence do you have to suggest that the survey was biased or not properly sampled?

I'm not sure what you imagine my narrative to be... do tell!

My point, the language of which I would have sought to make more watertight had I though it was in the least bit controversial, is that a survey of people who are labelled as 'motorists' is less interesting than a survey of, say, 'public transport users' in this context. But it does depend on what you are trying to find out, or to prove. If you were trying to find out if investments intended to achieve modal shift were effective, for example, then surely you'd ask a random sample of everyone?

Given that there are over 40 million motorists in the UK, and that a fair number of them would inevitably also be public transport users past or present, I reckon it's pretty representative, but your suggestion has merit, perhaps that's something ATOC could undertake to get a nationwide perspective?

I think badging motorists "Mr Toad" in the manner and context you have chosen suggests someone with an anti-motorist narrative...………...not a criticism you understand, just an observation.


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: eightonedee on September 24, 2018, 22:33:57
One thing that perhaps ought to be undertaken are surveys of those who chose to drive when they could take the train (or a bus). As a rail passenger I get questionnaires periodically, but I am not aware of any sent generally to those who work, asking them why they choose their preferred mode of transport over others.

Some of my work colleagues don't use trains although they could do so. In one case it is because their local station (Liphook) is badly lit at night, and there have been prowlers in the area (a female colleague), another likes winding down after work listening to Radio 4 in his car rather than taking a train to Cosham, and a third doesn't fancy the walk to his local station at Worplesdon down an unlit lane with no pavement or lights.  None of these mention cost or unreliability. Perhaps if this information was gathered and analysed we might find ways of attracting more over.


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: CyclingSid on September 25, 2018, 07:21:56
Another example of people having a form of transport removed that forces them to use their car. The Hayling ferry, between Hayling and Portsmouth, went into administration a few years ago. It took about two years for somebody else to pick up the service. In the meantime most users had resorted to car, including for the school run to Portsmouth schools, potentially adding 20 miles to the journey and the environmental effects etc etc.

While the service was not operating the connecting buses were removed, not unreasonable. After much discussion the two councils. Havant and Portsmouth, have agreed to subsidise the bus services for six months from now. Will six winter months be sufficient to persuade the local residents to go back to using the ferry? The ferry service is probably viable in summer, like most Hayling businesses, but struggles in winter. So it is an exercise in trying to restore the base user population.

Be interesting to see what happens. I don't think the service is viable as a summer-only service, to much infrastructure to maintain. Unlike Hamble and Itchenor ferries where you land in the mud/foreshore one side.


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: ellendune on September 25, 2018, 07:45:51
Another aspect of useability of public transport is the service frequency at different times of day.  I could take the bus to the station in Swindon and back. In the morning and during the day it is 20 minute frequency, however if I come back after 6, the frequency of buses reduces dramatically and the bus station is not a nice place to wait of an evening. Also it is only a short drive while the bus takes twice as long. By the time I have then added an allowance for unreliability of buses in the morning, the whole thing just adds over an hour to what is often already a long working day. 


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: grahame on September 25, 2018, 08:39:09
One thing that perhaps ought to be undertaken are surveys of those who chose to drive when they could take the train (or a bus). As a rail passenger I get questionnaires periodically, but I am not aware of any sent generally to those who work, asking them why they choose their preferred mode of transport over others.

I have long nagged Passenger Focus - now Transport Focus - to look beyond the satisfaction levels of only the people who are already satfisfied enough to use the train ... Anthony Smith may be rather tired of the question from me.  I am told, though, that some of this research has now been done; I need to chase up its availability and take a detailed.  Apparently limited in scope - "very expensive" to do.

Quote
Some of my work colleagues don't use trains although they could do so. In one case it is because their local station (Liphook) is badly lit at night, and there have been prowlers in the area (a female colleague), another likes winding down after work listening to Radio 4 in his car rather than taking a train to Cosham, and a third doesn't fancy the walk to his local station at Worplesdon down an unlit lane with no pavement or lights.  None of these mention cost or unreliability. Perhaps if this information was gathered and analysed we might find ways of attracting more over.

Agreed.   If you have a station at the end of a deserted cul-de-sac at the back of an industrial estate it can feel a bit unsafe at night and put people off in the dark.  For a commuter town where evening traffic is mostly inwards, a shuttle bus around the town meeting each train would do wonders ...

Cosham is the station where even some of the trains (GWR's) don't call after dark, isn't it?  If it scares the trains, it must petrify the people.


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: TaplowGreen on September 25, 2018, 08:47:08
I suspect all of these things are factors - it'd be interesting to have a top 10 - Unreliability, cost, overcrowding, filthy trains, inconvenience, unsafe/insecure station environments, lack of connection with other means of transport, poor customer service, lack of disabled provision, long promised improvements which never materialise, together with all those that others have listed here (and elsewhere) are inevitably going to be factors to a greater or lesser extent.

The big question is of course, what are the railways going to do to address them, and get these customers (back) on board? (Hopefully with enough space to breathe when they do)


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: ChrisB on September 25, 2018, 10:34:57
The problem is that there is little incentive....if passenger numbers seriously drop off then there might be, but otherwise franchises aren't set up any more to encourage the TOCs to (further) increase traveling numbers


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: TaplowGreen on September 25, 2018, 16:58:36
The problem is that there is little incentive....if passenger numbers seriously drop off then there might be, but otherwise franchises aren't set up any more to encourage the TOCs to (further) increase traveling numbers

......interesting point, and to be honest, it's hardly in the interests of existing customers for more to be encouraged on to trains which are already dangerously overcrowded, most of us welcome a bit more space!


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: LiskeardRich on September 25, 2018, 17:12:23
The problem is that there is little incentive....if passenger numbers seriously drop off then there might be, but otherwise franchises aren't set up any more to encourage the TOCs to (further) increase traveling numbers

This. I was discussing a poor experience with a cross country employee. His response interested me. “Management don’t care as we are exceeding capacity so we could do with losing some passengers”


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: TaplowGreen on September 25, 2018, 17:26:35
The problem is that there is little incentive....if passenger numbers seriously drop off then there might be, but otherwise franchises aren't set up any more to encourage the TOCs to (further) increase traveling numbers

This. I was discussing a poor experience with a cross country employee. His response interested me. “Management don’t care as we are exceeding capacity so we could do with losing some passengers”

That's probably the one thing Management and Customers agree on!!!  :)


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: grahame on September 25, 2018, 17:48:09
Not only is there little incentive to encourage more passengers where trains are already full and bursting and not scheduled for any sponsored enhancement it the near future, but perhaps there are even element of the opposite?  Where a train operators is negotiating a continuation of their operation, and are the only bidder, could it not be seen as in their interest to start from a 'difficult' position - that way the DfT might be tempted to accept a lower bid / pay a greater price if the contract is one that requires subsidy?


Title: Re: Rise in car dependency - unintended consequence, or expected effect of policy?
Post by: ChrisB on September 25, 2018, 18:17:39
Isn't that why the XC re-franchise was halted when XC were the only interested bidder?



This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net