See Also:
Evidence that car drivers will switch to trams but not buses – 2
Evidence that car drivers will switch to trams but not buses – 3
evidence-that-car-drivers-will-switch-to-trams-but-not-buses-4/
https://bathtrams.uk/buses-and-busways-some-factual-observations-by-prof-lewis-lesley/
https://bathtrams.uk/car-drivers-will-not-use-buses/
See also evidence that car drivers hate buses
USA – home of the car love affair
A US Transportation Research Board analysis {US Transportation Research Board TRB Report No. 1221 of 40 years of data of buses replacing rail, and latterly rail replacing buses (as in Houston), showed that light rail (trams) carried 40% more trips than a like for like bus service, and that the majority of this difference was car commuters switching to rail. Passenger behaviour is a stronger signal of travel preference than attitude surveys.
This analysis has 38 references.
The Conclusion says this:
”
CONCLUSION
In most cities served by buses exclusively, transit riding has declined 75 percent over the past 40 years. Exclusive busways have not made much difference absolutely, but they have helped relatively. In 11 areas with updated rail transit facilities, ridership has increased markedly, often by more than 100 percent. In two of these areas, the transit systems are attracting more ridership than they did when gasoline and tires were rationed. It appears that rail transit makes a great difference in ridership attraction, with attendant benefits (38).
Because transit use is a function of travel time, fare, frequency of service, population, and density, increased transit use can not be attributed to rail transit when these other factors are improved. When these service conditions are equal, it is evident that rail transit is likely to attract from 34 percent to 43 percent more riders than will equivalent bus service. The data do not provide explanations for this phenomenon, but other studies and reports suggest that the clearly identifiable rail route; delineated stops that are often protected; more stable, safer, and more comfortable vehicles; freedom from fumes and excessive noise; and more generous vehicle dimensions may all be factors.
Those engaged in alternatives analyses and similar studies would be well advised to consider these differential factors before making service recommendations or traffic relief assumptions. Future problems with air pollution, congestion, and funding may all be seriously affected by these considerations.”
Some comments on the above from David Holt:
“ Dave
CONCLUSION
“The data do not provide explanations for this phenomenon, but other studies and reports suggest that the clearly identifiable rail route; delineated stops that are often protected; more stable, safer, and more comfortable vehicles; freedom from fumes and excessive noise; and more generous vehicle dimensions may all be factors.”
Croydon and other UK re-trammed cities
With a good tram system, a significant proportion of hitherto car drivers leave their cars at home, reducing congestion and permitting increases traffic (and tram) speed. The Tramlink[1] in Croydon has 25% of its passengers leaving a car at home, and has reduced Borough traffic by 19% and requires a second town centre line to accommodate the growth in patronage, due to the resurgence of central area shopping and work.
[1] https://insidecroydon.com/2013/07/11/dirty-croydon-i-boris-failing-londoners-on-air-quality/
2.15 Bus passes will not solve the problem. People would rather use cars than buses — extract from Bath Trams report
Fares are rarely the main reason people do not use public transport. Quality, reliability, frequency and comfort come first, and a free fare does not compensate for a service that is slow or unpredictable. The point is illustrated every day in London: pensioners visiting from outside the capital hold a pass giving them free travel on London’s buses, and large numbers of them nonetheless pay to use the Underground. Outside London, many pensioners with cars never use their free bus pass at all.
The behavioural evidence bears this out. New tram systems typically draw between 20 and 30 per cent of their passengers from cars. Comparable bus schemes draw between 4 and 6.5 per cent. Free travel is not the variable that moves car users; the mode is.
Bath’s own evidence points the same way. In its 2017 study of trams for Bath, commissioned by Bath and North East Somerset Council, Atkins found that car trips originating within the city come predominantly from the outer edges, where it is harder to walk, cycle or use the bus to reach the centre, and that trips from outside Bath come in large part from rural areas without rail access and with high car dependence. On the eastern approach it is explicit about cause: the relatively poor public transport choices from the east appear to be one of the reasons for the high traffic flows on the A4 London Road into the city. Where the alternative is poor, people drive.
Croydon shows what happens when the alternative changes. Over a quarter of Tramlink’s passengers leave a car at home, and the Oscar Faber study for Transport for London recorded approximately 19 per cent modal shift from car at corridor level. Traffic reductions across the Borough were reported in the years that followed.
Source: Atkins (2017), The Potential Introduction of Trams to Bath: Initial Evidence-Based Study, report for Bath & North East Somerset Council, sections 2.1 and 2.2.
Further comment from David Holt on 2.15 above and generally)
“to compensate for the differences in real and perceived differences in the in the quality of service.
Transport impacts of Greater Manchester’s (Metrolink) light rail system”
Light Rail Developers’ Handbook (LLLRDH). ISBN 978-1-60427-048-8, Lewis Lesley, J. Ross Publishing Inc, 2011, p 8.
‘The enhancement of property values near light rail lines compared to those further away has been noticed in other cities. This urban restructuring can reinforce the role of the light rail system and capture a larger share of the urban trip making, from typically 2% to more than 5% of all trips per line, or up to 40% of the movements in that corridor.’ – Light Rail Developers’ Handbook (LLLRDH). ISBN 978-1-60427-048-8, Lewis Lesley, J. Ross Publishing Inc, 2011, p 8.
Modal Tram Switch from Cars to Trams in Freiburg
The chart below shows how over time as the tram network has extended, people have shifted from cars to trams in Freiburg – similarly in many other European tram cities.
The Houston Example:
In Houston (Texas), construction began in June 2008 on five more light rail lines, a 30-mile- (48-km-) long system, to supplement the successful first line opened in 2004. Ten years of building HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes failed to attract car trips to buses. These HOV lanes are now being tolled for single-occupant car use, showing the failure of bus lines using them.
¨
The Runcorn Example
¨The pioneering Runcorn Busway, opened in 1969 to serve Runcorn New Town was expected to attract 50% of internal trips to bus. The New Town was built as a series of development at each Busway Stop. Buses run on the Busway at 40mph and trips by bus are faster than car to the town centre, Shopping City. By the early 1980s the Busway was only carrying 15% of trips, and today only 5%.
From WSP-PB a world class consultancy
http://www.wsp-pb.com/en/WSP-UK/Who-we-are/Newsroom/features/Tram-old-world-idea-with-futuristic-potential/
” Since falling out of favour in receding years of the 1900’s, recent governments have backed light rail, especially trams, to provide better, smarter municipal transportation at a lower cost per mile, whilst also improving the environment.
Light rail, trams and other rapid transit systems, even trolleybuses, are a key part of an overall strategy to get people out of their cars, to reduce congestion and emissions in our major conurbations. Croydon Tramlink, for example, affected a modal shift from cars of 20 per cent.”
Correspondence:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: sherman.havens
Date: 30 January 2018 at 10:56
Subject: RE: Modal Shift
To: dave andrews <tyningroad@gmail.com>
Hello Dave,
Thank you for your feedback.The modal shift is growing, 20% was a conservative and documented value at the time of writing. If we can be of more assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.
Regards,
Sherman G. Havens
Technical Director
Systems Engineering, Communications & Controls
Direct: +44 (0)20 3116 5926 Swbd: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 Mobile: +44 (0)78 8705 9710
WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1AF
WSP is one of the world’s fastest-growing design, engineering and management consultancies. Specialising in property, transport and environmental projects, we work with clients to create built and natural environments for the future.
From: dave andrews [mailto:tyningroad@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 January 2018 19:38
To: Havens, Sherman
Subject: Modal Shift
Hi, I thought the modal shift was more like 25%?
Thanks
Dave Andrews
Dave Andrews
http://www.claverton-energy.com/
The Future of Light Rail and Modern Trams in the United Kingdom
House of Commons Transport Committee Integrated Transport: Tenth Report of Session 2004–05 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 23 March 2005
Modal Shift 11. Light rail is relatively quick; it is usually reliable and has a good ride quality. As is well documented, people will leave their cars to take the tram or metro11. While bus journeys in England have reduced by 14% since 1982 and, outside London, bus use has tended to fall, light rail journeys have more than tripled.12 While this is a reflection of the fact that the number of light rail systems has increased, Transport Statistics Great Britain 2004 shows that patronage has risen on the Docklands Light Railway, the Manchester Metrolink, the Sheffield Supertram, and the Croydon Tramlink, even when the systems were not being extended.13
