• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

The Public Transport Thread

Leek as in the vegetable

On this thread, very simple solution - copy the Thorpe Park Shuttle Bus and implement it for Towers from Stoke for the west and Derby for the east

This would solve the age long debate about Alton Towers public transport links (which is one of many desires for the park along with more flat rides, a splashdown water ride and SW9)
It’s not quite that simple, unfortunately.

Staines railway station is merely 2-3 miles and less than 10 minutes from Thorpe Park. It also receives 6 trains per hour to and from London Waterloo, a major London terminus, off-peak (more run during peak hours). This makes running a service every 15 minutes quite cost-effective for the park (or the bus operator; I’m not certain on whether the 950 is officially affiliated with Thorpe or not); the London commuter belt nature of Staines station and its frequent services allow quite a lot of people to easily access it by train, and the park is close enough that running a bus every 15 minutes in each direction does not require that many buses.

With Alton Towers, on the other hand; Stoke is ~30 minutes and ~15 miles from Towers, and Derby is ~40 minutes and ~25 miles away. That is no small journey, and would require a number of buses to attain the same sort of bus frequency even from one station, let alone two. Uttoxeter is closer, but even that is ~20 minutes and ~9 miles away, and it has significantly fewer people passing through it, being served by infrequent local services.

It’s just not economically feasible to run a service with any kind of flexibility or service frequency, unfortunately.
 
And flyingguitar, there is a fifth problem to add to your four, as previously stated...
There is no demand for the service, for 99% of punters, a car is quicker and easier.
yeah I did try to include that with point 4 about how it will take a long time (probably longer than if there was a bus and going from Uttoxeter) and probably cost more
 
There used to be a more regular service to the Towers from Stoke years ago didn't there, tied to the train times.
It flopped due to a lack of use.

And flyingguitar, there is a fifth problem to add to your four, as previously stated...
There is no demand for the service, for 99% of punters, a car is quicker and easier.
I think we may be going onto the chicken and the egg debate with this one to be honest

99% of people use a car because it is the only practical option however when there is an option, it is a very long winded one which will put off people who could use it instead of car.

At the same time, the current services make it prohibitive for everyone else to go to Towers due to the one bus a day service from Monday to Saturday and the expensive hotel prices on site.

If there was at least a Sunday or Bank Holiday service, it would let people go to the park on the buses on a long weekend.
 
If there was at least a Sunday or Bank Holiday service, it would let people go to the park on the buses on a long weekend.
The park really dose need to try and look at getting some, I can't imagine the number of people (students, teenagers, city people (Birmingham has pretty good public transport)) who can't drive / don't have a car and I really think if there were accessible, relatively cheap methods it could really help. it also is much more accessible as public transport is much more disable friendly compared to driving


I did just come up with another serious problem is accessibility of Alton station
if you dive past Alton station, it is at the bottom of the valley a good mile or two walk to the entrance (on roads with no paths), Alton would either have to add an entrance at the bottom of the valley and figure out how to get people up the valley or add a like 2 mile path to the entrance (on a 60 road as well), or add a bus service
 
People prefer cars as simple as that.
It is personal preference, as well as being the only practical option.
There is no chicken and egg.
The chicken was killed by Beeching, sixty years ago...as simple as that.

And buses, if there was an economic, realistic proposition, then an independent provider would offer a service.
But there isn't an economic proposition, because people prefer cars.
 
People prefer cars as simple as that.
It is personal preference, as well as being the only practical option.
There is no chicken and egg.
The chicken was killed by Beeching, sixty years ago...as simple as that.
That isn't strictly true, the problem is that a lot of our infrastructure was built with cars in mind, leading to a car centric society (massive shopping centres far from public transport, huge roads etc) planning has changed so rather than focus on cars there is more focus on biking, buses, trains etc. however it isn't there yet, if you look at holland no one uses a car, most of them bike everywhere (a much more efficient interms of space and energy)

I would argue people may prefer public transit if it was better.
If you could go between point A and B in a similar (or faster) time for similar cost there are huge advantages (talking to the people you are with, being able to go on your phone, etc)
There are downsides such as crowding however these are usually tide to funding, if funding was increased such that more busses, trains etc could run (via more drives, better signalling systems, new lines, etc)
The problem is people who chose to live far from their job and drive to work, and NIMBYS oppose most public transport funding (choosing to focus on HS2 rather than the billions we spend on motorways)
Part of the problem is that public transport is more expensive than driving, and often takes longer
 
Plenty of people do not prefer cars I have driven half my life and I am one of them
I fully agree, I am in the same boat I have to work at a different office so live the opposite side of the city.
My journey via car was about 1-3 hours (depending on traffic) however via public transport it was about 1.5 hours, slightly longer than it could have been however I never got stuck in traffic, never had to drive, could watch youtube, netflix, etc on the train, my journey time was much more consistent (around 1.5 hours) and I could walk about.
 
That isn't strictly true, the problem is that a lot of our infrastructure was built with cars in mind, leading to a car centric society (massive shopping centres far from public transport, huge roads etc) planning has changed so rather than focus on cars there is more focus on biking, buses, trains etc. however it isn't there yet, if you look at holland no one uses a car, most of them bike everywhere (a much more efficient interms of space and energy.

Sorry, just no.
The road infrastructure has expanded, despite encouragement to use extended subsidised provision of public transport, because people want individual private transport...specifically cars.
That is an undeniable fact.
Year on year, more road miles are created to allow increased road use by cars, despite planners continually encouraging public transport use...people still pick cars...London excepted as an individual case...but even there, despite all the encouragement and excellent transport systems, half of households have a car.
This has been continual and unquestionable over the last sixty years.
Use of public transport has massively declined over that time...through consumer choice alone...we demand and insist on using cars, not buses...fact.

"Look at Holland no one uses a car".
Absolutely false.
Please, check your facts before posting, it is so easy to do with the internet...75% of Dutch families have at least one car...and use it daily...just so you know.
Stereotypes of dutchmen in clogs on bikes is so nineteenth century.
You may be thinking of Amsterdam...a congested city...with excellent public transport networks, where half of households still own at least one car.
But there are a lot of bikes.
 
Sorry, just no.
The road infrastructure has expanded, despite encouragement to use extended subsidised provision of public transport, because people want individual private transport...specifically cars.
That is an undeniable fact.
Year on year, more road miles are created to allow increased road use by cars, despite planners continually encouraging public transport use...people still pick cars...London excepted as an individual case...but even there, despite all the encouragement and excellent transport systems, half of households have a car.
This has been continual and unquestionable over the last sixty years.
Use of public transport has massively declined over that time...through consumer choice alone...we demand and insist on using cars, not buses...fact.
The road infrastructure may have expanded, I didn't never said it didn't, just that isn't as car centric. car centric essentially means making a place that is impossible to get to via non cars (think bike lanes, bus lanes, narrower roads, slower roads etc)

you can think people would prefer cars, sitting in them stuck in traffic however you have to go to any city and you will see, people on bikes, electric scooters, busses etc, the problem is our public transport is bad, this is a problem of poor funding for trains, busses etc leading to limited routes, limited availability, limited services and poor quality
the problem is that people rarely experience public transport or biking, and if we had good pubic services, like in Switzerland, Japan, holland, I think a lot less people would drive and instead choose to catch the bus or tram to work. the problem is that we have literally centuries old infrastructure holding back most of the public transport with little investment outside london

cars are much worse for every one, people get stuck in traffic, it pollutes cities (even EV create pollution), they are really loud, and they require a ton of space.

"Look at Holland no one uses a car".
Absolutely false.
Please, check your facts before posting, it is so easy to do with the internet...75% of Dutch families have at least one car...and use it daily...just so you know.
Stereotypes of dutchmen in clogs on bikes is so nineteenth century.
You may be thinking of Amsterdam...a congested city...with excellent public transport networks, where half of households still own at least one car.
But there are a lot of bikes.
perhaps I exaggerated, however there are multiple cities other than amsterdam, one like 20 years ago used to be very car centric, even compared to america, however they slowly transformed it into bike centric cities.

there are literally more bikes than people in holland, "Dutch individuals rode their bikes 4.8 billion times last year alone, covering 18.2 billion kilometres, or 3 kilometres every day. A quarter of all trips are conducted by bicycle"

and for your point that everyone likes cars, "Despite this, there is still untapped potential. It is known that seven out of ten vehicle users say they would like to cycle more often for short trips but cars still prevail in this type of trip."

<from this: https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/...ow-cyclists-in-the-netherlands-are-monitored/>

my argument is that our public transport has been underfunded for too long, so it is bad if we had good public transit, which was affordable and quick with alternatives such as walking or cycling you could get more people doing it however as we don't have good public transit comparing cars, cars will mostly win.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ash
Cars win because they are convenient, private, comparatively safe and personal...going door to door.
Clear public preference, ownership has only gone up.
People are walking more, driving more, and cycling less in this country.
And there are more bikes than people in this country too, they are mainly stuck in sheds and garages, and bike owners tend to have more than one bike...same as Holland.
Public transport outside big cities has reduced, in frequency of service and service numbers, because people refuse to use it if there is a car alternative in their household.
The buses and trains used to be there, but people chose to stop using them.
Nobody is forced to buy a car, it is how the vast majority of people choose to get around.
 
Last edited:
I’ll try not to channel too much of the “frustrated urban planner” within me.

To me cars were one of those things which are fundamentally brilliant inventions, but society (and governments) have abused them as a “fix for all” - a bit like handing out benzos to anyone and everyone who requested them whenever they like – it’s just bloody irresponsible.

Like when we really think about it, why is it we accept 1,600 deaths per year and act surprised? We give a few lessons to 17yos with no psych evaluation, substance abuse checks, they take a single test them bam. On the road for the rest of their lives.

We’ve got 2 ton death machines being driven around by the majority of the population, whilst train drivers and pilots have extensive checks and balances constantly to ensure they’re fit for work. And if something goes wrong? National enquiry. Public outage. They get fired.

Double standards.

That’s before you get into the fact cars sit idle over 95% of the time meaning endless gardens are paved over with tarmac. Meanwhile roads are widened, traffic piles up, we add more lanes, people go “more space to drive quicker!”, more people drive, roads get wider = repeat.

Meanwhile (trying this back to the thread), building roads are then seen as an “investment” whilst railways, tram lines etc are “Hugely expensive” “Why is taxpayers money being spend on a train line to a place I don’t care about!”

It’s all attitude. It’s a self-inflicted cycle of addiction and even triggers huge defensiveness in drivers when they realise they’re an addict.

I should point out many *need* to drive, as public transport where they live just wouldn’t be viable (if you live in the arse end of nowhere)

Point stands though. Until attitudes change and we break the cycle, government won’t invest in public transport to the degree say Spain or the Netherlands do. It’s a sunk cost to them.

Ah never mind, “frustrated urban planner” always gets loose!
 
Last edited:
Cars win because they are convenient, private, comparatively safe and personal...going door to door.
public transit can be convenient,
it is statistically safter, by like a factor of 20+ (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/)

is it being "private" much of an advantage, you can still easily talk on trains, busses etc similar to how you can talk in a resturant or at a theme park.

the only real advantage it has is going door to door, however with good public transit networks that isn't much of an advantage

the conveniently and door to door points are only really applicable if you have poor public transit links like we do here, have you ever used true public transit, like they type in holland, switzerland, etc, it is extremely safe, convenient and you can get anywhare extremely easily, they make londons public transport look like america!

if we had properly funded public transit it can be just as convenient as if you do public transit enough it becomes easy and second nature, in the same way you know how to navigate between streets it becomes second nature to know what bus goes where, which bus you should take, when the train will arrive. if your trains arrived on time, and were frequent (not once every 30 mins!) if our busses were more frequent, had more routes and were better intigrated with the rest the whole system would be much more convient.


Clear public preference, ownership has only gone up.
that is a biproduct of lack of investment in public transit, and it becomes a cycle.
pubic investment in public funding is reduced, reducing service leading to less people traveling, leading to less ticket sales, leading to reduced service, and repeat.

And there are more bikes than people in this country too, they are mainly stuck in sheds and garages, and bike owners tend to have more than one bike...same as Holland.
Ok, but that is ignoring the main points from that, 1/4 of journeys are via bike and 7/10 drivers say they wish they could use a bike for the journeys they can't.

I’ll try not to channel too much of the “frustrated urban planner” within me.

To me cars were one of those things which are fundamentally brilliant inventions, but society (and governments) have abused them as a “fix for all” - a bit like handing out benzos to anyone and everyone who requested them whenever they like – it’s just bloody irresponsible.

Like when we really think about it, why is it we accept 1,600 deaths per year and act surprised? We give a few lessons to 17yos with no psych evaluation, substance abuse checks, they take a single test them bam. On the road for the rest of their lives.

We’ve got 2 ton death machines being driven around by the majority of the population, whilst train drivers and pilots have extensive checks and balances constantly to ensure they’re fit for work. And if something goes wrong? National enquiry. Public outage. They get fired.

Double standards.

That’s before you get into the fact cars sit idle over 95% of the time meaning endless gardens are paved over with tarmac. Meanwhile roads are widened, traffic piles up, we add more lanes, people go “more space to drive quicker!”, more people drive, roads get wider = repeat.

Meanwhile (trying this back to the thread), building roads are then seen as an “investment” whilst railways, tram lines etc are “Hugely expensive” “Why is taxpayers money being spend on a train line to a place I don’t care about!”

It’s all attitude. It’s a self-inflicted cycle of addiction and even triggers huge defensiveness in drivers when they realise they’re an addict.

I should point out many *need* to drive, as public transport where they live just wouldn’t be viable (if you live in the arse end of nowhere)

Point stands though. Until attitudes change and we break the cycle, government won’t invest in public transport to the degree say Spain or the Netherlands do. It’s a sunk cost to them.

Ah never mind, “frustrated urban planner” always gets loose!
yeah, this is also a big point, cars are very selfish, they produce a lot of noise, take up a ton of space, they aren't very disabled friendly and many more problems (ironically adding bike lanes can reduce emergency vehicle response times, as they can drive in the bike lanes to avoid traffic (cyclists get out of the way much quicker)
 
I'm not going to keep going round in the same sad circles, but to repeat, again, one more time...the public transport used to be there...it has gone because most households moved over to cars, out of free choice...many buses and trains ran empty outside peak hours, completely uneconomically, so were reduced and stopped, because people had moved over to cars.

Where public provision has been increased, to take pressure off the roads, uptake generally has been poor, and abandoned.
See Marshy above.
Provide a better public transport system, and people still choose cars, unless there is horrendous congestion.
And even then, many prefer to sit in a stopped car than a moving train.

And again, your statistic of 25% of journeys are made via bike.
Source please, my statistics from yougov say 4%.

One in four journeys really aren't by bike, sorry.
 
the public transport used to be there...it has gone because most households moved over to cars,
maybe now it is but it started ages ago, as I said it is a cycle where cutting government funding then leads to services being cut and made worse, this drives people from public transport to cars, and repeat. what happened causing a massive shakeup a while ago with public services... ah yes. privatisation!

the cycle takes decades for impacts to be delt, as services slowly close and reduce, and quality reduces driving people away.

if your point is true that people wanted to drive the whole time, then why didn't they years ago? why are they doing it now?
there have to be driving factors for the amount of people to change their habits, why is it happening now, and why.

Provide a better public transport system, and people still choose cars, unless there is horrendous congestion.
And even then, many prefer to sit in a stopped car than a moving train.
the better public transit system needs to be holland levels, able to actually compete with cars rather than what we call public transit, why did 7/10 duch people who drive say they WANT shorter journeys to be able to be done by bikes?
 
Holland is flat.
Britain has big hills, and lots of rain comparatively.
People gave up cycling to work in the sixties, and, barring covid, are getting off their bikes and walking and driving more.
Fact.
Whatever you want to happen, that is what is actually happening.
 
I'm not going to keep going round in the same sad circles, but to repeat, again, one more time...the public transport used to be there...it has gone because most households moved over to cars, out of free choice...many buses and trains ran empty outside peak hours, completely uneconomically, so were reduced and stopped, because people had moved over to cars.

Where public provision has been increased, to take pressure off the roads, uptake generally has been poor, and abandoned.
See Marshy above.
Provide a better public transport system, and people still choose cars, unless there is horrendous congestion.
And even then, many prefer to sit in a stopped car than a moving train.

It’s a tough cycle to break.

It’s very chicken and egg. It’s easy to build something like the Elizabeth Line in London (a city where many don’t drive already) and for it to be a roaring success. It was a demand-side policy to reduce congestion, but has resulted in massive increases in latent-demand (people who otherwise wouldn’t have bothered travelling in the first place in a specific route) – all this alongside huge development around stations proving tens of thousands of homes. More passengers. Cycle continues.

It’s worked outside of London too, but primarily in already densely populated urban areas like Greater Manchester, where one tram stop can have 10,000 people or more within 10mins walk of a stop. Even there it’s been piecemeal. Demand-side first, demand grows, less people drive, more use PT, demand for PT grows, car ownership continues to decline.

The trouble we have is rural, semi-rural or car-centric suburbs. There’s just no way a bus can justify every 15mins (in order to actually be useful) when only 100-200 or so people live within walking distance. They’ll just drive. If you look at the US, huge sprawling residential only suburbs – they’re designed such that houses are all on hard to reach cul-de-sacs. People aren’t going to walk 2km to a bus stop when there’s a car in their drive.

I think the best solution in areas like this has to be a form of park and ride for bus, tram or train. That effectively quadruples the coverage of stations/stops, without having to demolish people’s homes and replace them with dense terraces or apartments and redesign the street layout for walkability.

I wish we never built in such a car-centric fashion in the first place, then we wouldn’t be in this situation. It’s a bit like AI. Affordable “Automobiles” hit the market fast, no guardrails, no “is this a sustainable long-term approach to planning” – the market and government reacted, fast.

Could we get car usage in metropolitan areas in the UK down to 30% with improved PT? Yes. In rural areas? Maybe 20% reduction at most with good bus+P&R facilities. Cycling infrastructure helps, but again, not great if you’re in unprotected country lanes. Most effective in urban areas.

The vast majority of people in the UK happen to live in metropolitan areas, so if we *did* drastically improve PT there, that’s almost a 50% reduction in drivers country-wide. Attitudes shift, as do expectations. “One more lane!” – a legacy road planning decision of the past.
 
Last edited:
Holland is flat.
Britain has big hills, and lots of rain comparatively.
People gave up cycling to work in the sixties, and, barring covid, are getting off their bikes and walking and driving more.
Fact.
Whatever you want to happen, that is what is actually happening.
cycling is on an upward trend,

Trend for billion miles cycled​

  • upward over the last few decades
  • 2.5 (1993)
  • 2.8 (2003)
  • 3.2 (2013)
  • 3.6 (2023)
(https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics)

in addition according to statistics,
"
  • The biggest incentive for commuting to work on a bike (aside from living closer to work) is better cycling infrastructure, with 12.5% of UK adults stating that an improvement in this would encourage them to do so.
  • This is then followed by cycle to work schemes, with 11.5% of the population stating that if their employer was to contribute towards the cost of a bike, this would help encourage them to ride a bike to work.
  • Better bike storage options at the workplace comes in close third place, with 11% of people citing this as something that does, or would encourage them to cycle on their commute, such as bike stands and bike racks.
  • And last but not least is showering facilities at work and the use of e-bikes, with 8% of people saying that this would help persuade them to ride into work.
"

and only "1 in 3 (29.7%) UK adults say they don’t cycle to work, and nothing would encourage them to do so."
(https://www.barriersdirect.co.uk/blog-posts/190-cycling-statistics-uk-and-cycling-to-work)

so the whole country doesn't just want to drive, incentives and infrastructure needs to be in place to allow for that

The trouble we have is rural, semi-rural or car-centric suburbs. There’s just no way a bus can justify every 15mins (in order to actually be useful) when only 100-200 or so people live within walking distance. They’ll just drive.
this is also a really big problem, some places have been built to only accommodate cars, and ignore any possible public transit needs, if people move to an area like this, then they need to drive to work as there is no alternative.

to add to this high density housing hasn't really been built, it mostly is low density housing as each house can be sold for more, so developers make more money

this also has made people live further away from their work, leading to difficulties getting public transit

it is possible to fix, some cities in holland were is a similar place, however NIMBYS and the like will complain that their house they brought is too far, and they will insist that closing a lane of a road for a bus lane will put too much burden on them. it will also take a long time, and depending on who is in power will depend where priorities are (such as if someone gets into power who wants to save money and thus cans the project)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ash
For those that want a railway, you're looking at best £1000 per metre. A quick look on Google Maps has it around 6.3km from Froghall to Alton Towers station, so £6.3 million without sorting the various tunnels, bridges, crossings to connect to a line with no mainline links, so you can't even run direct services.

Capacity wise, a heritage MK1 TSO coach can take 64 fully loaded, probably get 70 if you had some standing or 100 on WedgEx Gala loading which would not be popular. If they aren't running up the hill to Ipstones, a decent size heritage diesel could take load 8 or 9 coaches, if the line can support that many in loops/stations for running multiple trains. Probably looking at £25k at least per coach for restorations, so another £200k.

Motive power maintenance, a Western for example has semi-recently been priced at £100,000 for a restoration by the DEPG who own it. If they needed another loco and had to restore one, plus sorting out a fleet of coaches including one with wheelchair access, plus sorting the line you could easily end up with not much left from £10 million. It isn't happening.
 
Top