On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 21:05, david r
—
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020, 19:58 Ian Crawford, wrote:
Hi David,Great article supporting mass transit – I suspect that the increase in ride-hail especially in USA is a reflection of what the few who can afford the convenience regardless of cost, adding to pollution , congestion and stress. The argument for public transport is not just an environmental one but a social justice one too.Regards and keep wellIan
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFrom: Dave Andrews
Sent: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 21:13
Subject: Re: [tfgb] Forget Ride-Hailing. Rail Is A City’s Most Cost-Effective, Least-Polluting TransportI don’t think that’s true. In the UK people taking uber or often the poorest who used to take the bus. Ride hailing not only makes bus travel less economic to operators and depletes bus trips, the ubers themselves actually are slowing traffic down in a perverse feedback loop encouraging more uberuse.it is generally the poor who spend the most on ordinary taxis.Best Wishes
Dave Andrews
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAll,Taxi use is highest in the poorest quartile UK households (mostly carless). The next biggest users are the top quartile households. This reinforces/confirms market research over the last 40 years that cost is not a big determinant of bus use. Quality of service is the real decider. Often this is people’s perception of the quality of service, rather than an actual one, since it may have been decided by the one day the car was in the garage for repair, and the bus did not turn up or was late.LJS
From: Dave
Sent: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 21:13
Subject: Re: [tfgb] Forget Ride-Hailing. Rail Is A City’s Most Cost-Effective, Least-Polluting TransportI don’t think that’s true. In the UK people taking uber or often the poorest who used to take the bus. Uber not only makes bus travel less economic to operators and depletes trips the ubers themselves actually are slowing traffic down in a perverse feedback loop encouraging more uberuse.it is generally the poor who spend the most on ordinary taxis.Best Wishes
Dave Andrews
A
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| 10 Apr 2020, 12:03 (1 day ago) | |||
|
|||
There are two additional problems – since deregulation buses outside London have become less simple (need for several different operators’ tickets), relatively more expensive and less comprehensive (eg: no service after 7pm in many places), and the British approach to tariffs based on distance rather than time and with few group tickets makes a taxi a far cheaper option when travelling as a couple and certainly as a family.
Regards to all,
Andrew
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 17:35, A wrote:
The point though is that taxi use is not simply an alternative to bus use, ergo trams are a more attractive proposition. They are a completely different class of service. They offer a door to door service that is extremely cost effective if travelling in groups.
A,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A,
I dont think those are the points being made. Clearly taxis for places unserviceable by buses or trams like maybe Wellow are good for taxis.
But there are plenty of places in Bath which are on bus routes (and old tram routes) like Twerton and Oldfield park, where a taxi is preferable to bus, due to the poor quality of service inherent in a bus.
Uber has caused a massive shift from bus to tram, in london and this has slowed traffic down enormously yet further encouragin UBER since you might as well sit in a Uber in a bud queue rather than sit in a bus. https://bathtrams.uk/britains-
Dave 
A
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: A
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020, 11:20
Subject: Re: Poor people use the most taxis
Sorry but a taxi is a door to door service. To suggest trams would replace them is failing to recognise the service they provide.
MOT data also indicates older cars do significantly less mileage (4k) and new cars do much more (20k). Old cars are owned by poorer people but they cannot afford to use them as much.
However there is no correlation between areas of deprivation and car ownership. Living in a transit desert (e.g. Wellow) forces car dependency.
Of course centres of cities have significantly less car ownership.
You can explore this here https://datashine.org.uk/
A
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All,
No one in their right mind would ever suggest that trams are capable of replacing all other travel modes. After all about a fifth of journeys are walked (because they are short). Similarly only 25% of trips are over 5miles long and less than 3% over 30miles.
BUT car trips (until coronavirus) dominated all trips, even in Bath, where nearly 70% are made by car and less than 10% by bus. Other European cities have shown that public transport usage can be increase to over 20% of the market, not by low fares or free services but by opting for or expanding tram systems, which passengers prefer. There are many examples from France and Germany that show tram + bus can get over 20% of modal split, and car reduced to under 40%.
It would be naive to think this could be achieved in Bath, certainly not in the short term. Many European cities have also promoted and got large increases in cycle trips but that might be impractical in Bath with the steep hills, even with electric bikes, and without separated and safe (perception) cycle routes.
Being realistic a new tram route in Bath should be able to attract 20% of the car trips in the corridor served. More lines provide a synergy for increasing further trip attraction, just like the underground in London which has a lot of interchange between lines. Trams give about 90% of the benefits of Metros, at a much lower cost, typically about 10% of the CAPEX. Think of the cost of Cross Rail in London, that spent on trams would have provided a network of over 500 miles, twice as long as the tube system.
In Bath getting progressively more lines and more car trips attracted will increase the public transport modal share and reduce car traffic, congestion and toxic pollution. The question is how can this be achieved ? WECA is obviously going to spent most of its money in Bristol. How do you think Bath can solve the problems of traffic congestion and toxic air pollution ?
Kind regards,
Lewis
PS there is a lot more in “Light Rail Developers’ Handbook” ISBN 978 1 60427 048 8, and great for insomniacs.
