Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

deminion48 t1_jdxw8p3 wrote

Reply to comment by Krillin113 in Compare Public Transport Network Connectivity In 10 European Countries [OC] by TravelTime_LKB

Belgium seems to focus way more on quantity. So as many bus stops and routes as possible.

The Netherlands focuses way more on quality. So better service, higher frequencies, average speeds, more modern rolling stock, etc. But the cost of that is that Dutch transit companies look critically at every line. If a bus stop or route has too few users and is not considered financially viable, it is scrapped or restructured. It leads to a better operating network overall, at the cost of more people left without transit nearby. This also means fewer routes and stops are needed, to increase efficiency and keep things viable. Another thing is that transit is quite a bit more expensive in The Netherlands.

Both systems have benefits and drawbacks. One leads to better accessibility and coverage. The other is beneficial for a better service if you have access to it. This map mostly rewards quantity.

14

Djennik t1_jdywip9 wrote

Belgium is steadily shifting to this model as well. However due to the excessive ribbon development, citizens expect to be catered everywhere, which makes efficient public transport planning a difficult exercise.

6

Mtfdurian t1_jdzg7ra wrote

At this point though, the Netherlands is going way too far in destroying the network for the sake of "profitability". It is no longer seen by provincial governments as a public service but as a burden, and that problematic view has left thousands of people on the curbs of the streets. People can nag about the Belgian network but at least it will bring you home in more occasions than in the Netherlands. In Belgium I could at least expect a bus near my apartment building in the city on Saturdays.

The operations on the network are going down the drain because lines are scrapped sometimes in a very rough manner. And the labor contracts have deteriorated too, leading to strikes that, in severity, are not unfamiliar to the French.

1

Waytemore t1_jdzrtyh wrote

Fight against this if you can. That's what has happened to all UK services and outside London our public transport is fairly awful now, which leads to more cars on the roads and all the problems that brings with it.

1

deminion48 t1_jdztju1 wrote

The problem is that the Belgian network is not viable either. They have way too many stops and routes that you are essentially wasting tons of money on plenty of routes barely anyone uses. The better model in that regard is the Dutch model, just with more help from the government to increase coverage. The Belgian model offers a lot of transit at a low-quality. It doesn't get people from the bicycle or car into transit. And in regard to bicycles, IMHO you don't want to get people from bicycles either, only cars. Bicycles are allowed to steal away as many transit and car users as it'd like.

Dutch transit can achieve that at a limited scale though, but is limited to fewer corridors. The future of a well working transit system lies in how The Netherlands planned it, but with more coverage. Having a service twice a day at a village of 500 is not doing anything really, except make politicians happy that they had x% covered by transit within walking distance. I much rather have the village of 2000 getting a bus service every 15 to 30 minutes.

The Dutch are on the right path IMO. They are just not provided the tools to implement it fully. But I rather see them on the right path but with limited access, than IMO the wrong path.

1

deminion48 t1_jdzscny wrote

Yes, a point could be made that The Netherlands has gone too far in that process. Part of that is also due to financial difficulty caused by labour shortages, the pandemic, and now also the permanent effects of the pandemic (working from home). So mass transit has basically been set-back for 4 years, which is a big financial blow to any company. That means fewer lines were financially viable due to more limited staffing and budget, and more importantly less transit use.

So cuts have indeed been made. It has become a tool to budget transit rather than to improve the quality of transit. However, if you need to budget transit, IMHO the way they are doing it is still the best way. So focusing more on the corridors are viable, and focus on improving those as much as possible to offer high-quality transit there and trying to be as competitive with the bike and care on that corridor as possible.

Dutch transit companies are indeed very harsh on scrapping service. If the numbers don't meet their criteria, it is usually gone. Also see it in the big cities. But there the impact of such a change is more limited. Then it is more like a 2-minute walk going to a 5-minute walk for example. Instead of some service to no service in rural areas.

0