Should buses be operated by private operators or in public hands?

[carlberry]

I think you're wrong about new towns - for various reasons.

They actually made it *far* easier for the bus companies - many of them had bus only roads - Telford and Halton being the most extensive, but places like Hemel did as well.

Additionally the estates were designed with bus stops conveniently sited, usually with lay bys, the town centres had (and in many cases still do) a reasonable sized bus station with space for vehicles to layover. And the way the towns were designed meant from most of the estates there were only 2 or 3 destinations within the town the buses needed to head for - town centre, rail station (if separate), industrial area (usually only 1 or 2) and hospital. Even then the bus companies managed to lose a captive audience.

Compare the ease of running buses around a new town like Harlow or Stevenage with the challenges of running through Luton or Watford - the bus companies had it easy in the New Towns.

There are different ways of defining 'easy'. Most new towns (Milton Keynes especially) were designed with small blocks of houses seperated by space and accessed down small roads. Having bus stops on the roads is good however if the bus cant get there because of parked cars obstructing the roads and has no reason to get there because there's only going to be one passenger every few hours (because the whole town has been designed around car ownership) the bus stop is going to remain unserved. The decline of bus services at the time may not have been helped by the industry, or the attitude of some bus staff, however most of it revolves around the social change of following America into the dream of universal car ownership. And it's worth remembering that this decline was during the time that some people view as a utopia where most bus operators were publicly owned, the network used extensive cross subsidisation and (post 1968) county councils were able to manage the network as well.

 

[markymark2000]

The biggest problem I have with the bus industry is that there is no integration between operators, and that competition, which you seem unable to place in anything other than a positive light, causes stupidity like routes with 4 buses an hour which are only served half hourly because the operators run within a few minutes of each other.

Do you expect that to be solved by just letting the market do its thing?

Also there's no real reason public bodies couldn't recruit industry experts and experts in route planning, and I suspect that's what TfL does, as they manage OK. They just don't because it's not worth it for the odd municipal route.

You might want to go and check out the Yorkshire Tiger thread which shows that a new tendered route runs 5 minutes behind a commercial service. Tender timetables are obviously decided and approved by the local authorities so if you think that it will get any better if buses were in public hands, you have a lot to learn.

SOME competition is silly, needless and causes issues. However, there are plenty of examples where competition works and encourages usage. In Manchester, the Uni is a big competition area between First, Stagecoach and GoNorthWest. Each of them competes for the shorter distance travellers into the city centre however each company then goes different ways out of the city and serves different markets so while there is competition for some sections, it does allow for much better longer distance journey opportunities.

Integration between routes is good but then you end up with an American style operation whereby routes don't run to the times people want them but instead end up running so 3 people can change between buses to go shopping once per week. Integration is looked at and bus operators do jump on it if they are made aware. Quite a few times I have seen operators have changed times and not realised where connections are being made, they have then changed the times quite quickly to accommodate the connection.

Public bodies can employ industry experts but the issue is these peoples knowledge means nothing to the public bodies and the public body just wants buses when they want them and it then gets to a point where the professional gives up.
You could have created the most profitable route in the UK but that means nothing if the 14A doesn't stop outside Margaret's house at precisely 10:23 on a Wednesday so she can go to Sainsburys and get home at 12:37. (The point being whenever an MP or councilor is elected, the instantly become an expert in bus timetables and operation so there is no point in hiring the person with the knowledge if it is all overridden and the council/LA is going to go their own way anyway. This is very often seen with current PTEs and tendered routes.

For the record, if you say that TFL manages ok. It doesn't. Why do you think they have tens of millions of pounds deficit per year? Because they can't run buses for love nor money. You speak the the majority of native Londoners and they will echo that. The only people who think TFL works perfectly are those who work there, uneducated sheep and those who have limited knowledge of the network and just how badly ran it is.

I recently went on holiday in the Lake District and their is no way the majority of it is served

There are some areas not served but given that there is zero subsidy from the council and given the area relies pretty much fully on summer trade, the area does really well. Are there things which could be done differently? Of course there are. Improvements can be made to every single bus operation regardless of ownership and operating style. No bus operator or operating style is perfect.

Public bodies would need to recruit the very people that are planning and running buses in the private sector. Planning is a very niche field and operators struggle to recruit scheduling staff. For example I am aware of at least one operator that are two schedulers short despite advertising the role a number of times. Why do they have difficulty? Because from the outside, buses are just not fun.

Please can you DM with names of these companies. Thanks in advance

Indeed, people seem to ignore the fact that to operate a fleet of electric buses depots need expensive chargers put in, not to mention the fact that electric buses generally speaking still can't do a full 18 hour day so you need to rotate them through the day increasing fleet size, among other problems.

As you say it's not a case that operators don't want to buy electric buses. It's that electric buses still can't do what a diesel bus can do, people need to keep in mind that the mileage regional buses do is much higher generally than those in London.

Buses also travel at much faster speeds outside of London. Buses in London crawl so not much power is used. Outside of London however there are plenty of instances of higher speed running of 30-40mph.

 

[cnjb8]

There are some areas not served but given that there is zero subsidy from the council and given the area relies pretty much fully on summer trade, the area does really well. Are there things which could be done differently? Of course there are. Improvements can be made to every single bus operation regardless of ownership and operating style. No bus operator or operating style is perfect.

To be fair, you are absolutely correct. I stayed near Hawkshead, and when I visited Bowness and Ulverston, their were more buses then I expected to see, but I only saw one bus out of the whole week I was in Hawkshead. I am actually quite shocked now that none of those buses in those towns were council funded!

 

[Tetchytyke]

You'll expect me to come in now and say Public Good Private Bad. And I won't- it's a lot more nuanced.

So, to start. There are good public operators (Lothian) and good private operators (Southern Vectis). There are terrible public operators (Warrington) and terrible private operators (Stagecoach Busways). Ownership isn't the defining factor.

So, "innovation". It's hard to be truly innovative with buses, and there's no evidence the private sector are better or worse at it. I remain sceptical that glossy seats and USB charging points tempt anyone out of their car. London buses don't have them and they have ridership other major cities would dream about. And London Buses' livery- all over red- would be derided as nasty anywhere else in the country.

What works is bit of stick- expensive parking, traffic jams- and easily accessible information about the alternative. Best Impressions, love them or loathe them, are GOOD at the information behind the shiny livery. Information is easy to read and easy to obtain. That's what gets people to see the alternative to sitting in a jam fighting for a parking space.

Secondly, you need coherence in a network. Franchising gets talked about in areas where there is no coherence, like in Tyne and Wear. Each company operates in a bubble. If you have to cross into another bubble it becomes staggeringly expensive.

London is the very definition of coherent: I have one card I can use on all buses, all trains* and all tubes. Hell, I can use my bank card and they bill me once at the end of the day/week. It's simple. It works. You don't get that anywhere else, and it shows. (*yes, yes, HS1 and HEx, I know).

But also, there's no coherence with infrastructure. Councils get pressured into building bus priority measures, only to see operators not use them. There are bus gates in South Tyneside that cost a fortune to build, at Go's insistence, but now don't get used because Go changed their network a year after construction. You see the same in West Yorkshire: shiny bus shelters and raised herbs on roads First abandoned with 56 days' notice. You can criticise councils for not investing, but when they do invest but their money gets spaffed up the wall by operators changing routes on a whim, what do you do? Once bitten, twice shy, after all.

For me, the issues come back to how things were privatised. There is a reason London had different rules. Operators can't collaborate as it's a cartel, but integration requires collaboration. And without integration you have nothing.

As with the railways, so much of what is wrong boils down to the stratospherically cack-handed way things were privatised, rather than the actual privatisation. After all, the oldest omnibus companies started out in private hands.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think think that Cumbria and Oxfordshire are good examples of where private companies thrive and people are relatively happy.

I can assure you that locals are not relatively happy in Cumbria, although Carlisle city services did improve markedly when Reay's arrived and made Stagecoach pull their finger out.

Get away from the Windermere-Ambleside-Grasmere tourist drag and buses are mostly poor in Cumbria. It's not the beacon of wonderfulness the tourists get to see.

 

[markymark2000]

So, "innovation". It's hard to be truly innovative with buses, and there's no evidence the private sector are better or worse at it. I remain sceptical that glossy seats and USB charging points tempt anyone out of their car. London buses don't have them and they have ridership other major cities would dream about. And London Buses' livery- all over red- would be derided as nasty anywhere else in the country.

I'd argue that it hasn't overly increased usage, few people get out of their car simply on the basis of wifi or USB ports. It does however keep passengers happier so it retains regular usage and when they talk with others about their experience, it is less 'old dirty cramped and if I had the money I would commute another way' to 'It isn't that bad actually, it's got wifi, USB ports etc'. It helps to change the publics overall perception of bus travel which while not directly, it may indirectly help people deem bus as more of a choice when they are forced to use public transport (like when their car has failed). I think for the younger generation Wifi and USB ports have helped as well since they quite often tend to use the facilities so again it's about retaining them so when they go on nights out or whatever, they use the bus and not the parent taxi.

What works is bit of stick- expensive parking, traffic jams- and easily accessible information about the alternative. Best Impressions, love them or loathe them, are GOOD at the information behind the shiny livery. Information is easy to read and easy to obtain. That's what gets people to see the alternative to sitting in a jam fighting for a parking space.

This needs combining with the innovation though as why sit in traffic jams on (what is perceived to be) a bus for old or poor people when instead you can sit in your car with air con, listen to whatever music you like on a seat which you find comfy and if there is traffic, you find alternative ways to go. Buses are stuck to route, can require more walking and in some cases aren't any quicker.

Put it this way, there are 2 buses (Operator and fares are irrelevant) you can get from home to work. You see one go past and it's a scruffy trident which just doesn't look great. The next bus a few minutes later is one of GNEs new high spec Streetdecks. Which one is more likely to get you out of your car? I know the bus model isn't widely known but it helps the point.

Secondly, you need coherence in a network. Franchising gets talked about in areas where there is no coherence, like in Tyne and Wear. Each company operates in a bubble. If you have to cross into another bubble it becomes staggeringly expensive.

London is the very definition of coherent: I have one card I can use on all buses, all trains* and all tubes. Hell, I can use my bank card and they bill me once at the end of the day/week. It's simple. It works. You don't get that anywhere else, and it shows. (*yes, yes, HS1 and HEx, I know).

I think that there is certainly a will to get more interconnectivity going but the multi modal/multi operator tickets aren't advertised enough. In many cases because these are ran by the operators, the PTEs and Councils want nothing to do with them and don't promote them. When they are council ran, the operators try not to issue them as the reimbursement rate is normally quite low (around 30p normally per acceptance)

Bank card capping is coming out extremely slowly though this is limited to the operator. I think the difficulty outside of London is there are so many payment systems, it it hard to cap automatically. London is good in that respect that all money goes into 1 big pot with only 1 payment system on the go so caps can be put into place. Slowly though, I think we might get there. Even train operators are struggling to do it and they are publicly owned. Even Manchester only recently got TapInTapOff cards and for some reason, that is only on the smartcard and doesn't include bank cards.

But also, there's no coherence with infrastructure. Councils get pressured into building bus priority measures, only to see operators not use them. There are bus gates in South Tyneside that cost a fortune to build, at Go's insistence, but now don't get used because Go changed their network a year after construction. You see the same in West Yorkshire: shiny bus shelters and raised herbs on roads First abandoned with 56 days' notice. You can criticise councils for not investing, but when they do invest but their money gets spaffed up the wall by operators changing routes on a whim, what do you do? Once bitten, twice shy, after all.

For me, the issues come back to how things were privatised. There is a reason London had different rules. Operators can't collaborate as it's a cartel, but integration requires collaboration. And without integration you have nothing.

As with the railways, so much of what is wrong boils down to the stratospherically cack-handed way things were privatised, rather than the actual privatisation. After all, the oldest omnibus companies started out in private hands.

This is an interesting point. I think the issue is both operators and councils here though not working in partnership to deliver these changes. Bus companies call for change and then 5 years later when demand has vastly changed, you get shiny bus stops and bus priority. It's no good when it's too late. The infrastructure improvements need to be done with bus operators to ensure that improvements will be used long term so it's not a wasted investment. Councils need to act quicker and deliver improvements when they are needed and not 5 years too late when all the demand has gone and the bus is close to withdrawal.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think you're wrong about new towns - for various reasons.

They actually made it *far* easier for the bus companies - many of them had bus only roads - Telford and Halton being the most extensive, but places like Hemel did as well.

Additionally the estates were designed with bus stops conveniently sited, usually with lay bys, the town centres had (and in many cases still do) a reasonable sized bus station with space for vehicles to layover. And the way the towns were designed meant from most of the estates there were only 2 or 3 destinations within the town the buses needed to head for - town centre, rail station (if separate), industrial area (usually only 1 or 2) and hospital. Even then the bus companies managed to lose a captive audience.

Compare the ease of running buses around a new town like Harlow or Stevenage with the challenges of running through Luton or Watford - the bus companies had it easy in the New Towns.

Having a large bus station to lay over doesn't make a town easy to serve. Traditional towns have much higher population densities than new towns. Luton has 4696 people per sq km, whereas Stevenage has 318 people per sq km. Even in smaller towns, Wellingborough has 4057 people per sq km whereas Corby has 900 per sq km.

That was the whole ethos of new towns in that populations were relocated from bombed out towns or to provide overspill housing whilst avoiding the issue of overcrowding. The odd bit of bus only road (excepting Runcorn) or a big bus station is welcome but it doesn't really help if you're having to employ more buses to cover a more spread out area to get them to these 2 or 3 key traffic objectives.

The plus point of new towns is that it doesn't have the issue of medieval road networks (e.g. comparing Redditch with Worcester) but that's a double edged sword as that accessibility enables easy car usage. This is usually allied to a wealth of cheap car parking; greater land availability = lower land values so parking can be both more easily accommodated and cheaper - see Telford!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But also, there's no coherence with infrastructure. Councils get pressured into building bus priority measures, only to see operators not use them. There are bus gates in South Tyneside that cost a fortune to build, at Go's insistence, but now don't get used because Go changed their network a year after construction. You see the same in West Yorkshire: shiny bus shelters and raised herbs on roads First abandoned with 56 days' notice. You can criticise councils for not investing, but when they do invest but their money gets spaffed up the wall by operators changing routes on a whim, what do you do? Once bitten, twice shy, after all.

That's why you have to have a true formal partnership. If you do X, we will do Y, and if you then fail to do X, then you're liable for the costs of Y. However, a lot of this isn't marginal stuff. If you were to put an inbound bus lane on Scotswood Road in Newcastle, it's pretty certain that bus services aren't going to be disappearing from that major trunk route.

So, "innovation". It's hard to be truly innovative with buses, and there's no evidence the private sector are better or worse at it. I remain sceptical that glossy seats and USB charging points tempt anyone out of their car. London buses don't have them and they have ridership other major cities would dream about. And London Buses' livery- all over red- would be derided as nasty anywhere else in the country.

On their own, a USB isn't going to tempt anyone out of their car. If it were so simple, we could simply fit USBs to every bus and let the cash roll in It's a complex mix of factors including improving the product, marketing etc

As for London, yes they have great ridership figures. If you were throwing £742m in subsidy at a city with high population density, you would expect so.

What works is bit of stick- expensive parking, traffic jams- and easily accessible information about the alternative. Best Impressions, love them or loathe them, are GOOD at the information behind the shiny livery. Information is easy to read and easy to obtain. That's what gets people to see the alternative to sitting in a jam fighting for a parking space.

That is part of the mix so I think we're actually in violent agreement. You need to have a partnership that has new vehicle investment and better marketing, so that the carrot is already in place for wielding the stick. The problem is that politicians love a great photo op whereas the clever thing to do is have that (with all the new buses etc) but to surreptitiously introduce the stick...... remove some parking (and increase the price of what is left) and gently level the playing field. Mind you, it's easy for me to say that...

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'd argue that it hasn't overly increased usage, few people get out of their car simply on the basis of wifi or USB ports. It does however keep passengers happier so it retains regular usage and when they talk with others about their experience, it is less 'old dirty cramped and if I had the money I would commute another way' to 'It isn't that bad actually, it's got wifi, USB ports etc'. It helps to change the publics overall perception of bus travel which while not directly, it may indirectly help people deem bus as more of a choice when they are forced to use public transport (like when their car has failed). I think for the younger generation Wifi and USB ports have helped as well since they quite often tend to use the facilities so again it's about retaining them so when they go on nights out or whatever, they use the bus and not the parent taxi.


This needs combining with the innovation though as why sit in traffic jams on (what is perceived to be) a bus for old or poor people when instead you can sit in your car with air con, listen to whatever music you like on a seat which you find comfy and if there is traffic, you find alternative ways to go. Buses are stuck to route, can require more walking and in some cases aren't any quicker.

Put it this way, there are 2 buses (Operator and fares are irrelevant) you can get from home to work. You see one go past and it's a scruffy trident which just doesn't look great. The next bus a few minutes later is one of GNEs new high spec Streetdecks. Which one is more likely to get you out of your car? I know the bus model isn't widely known but it helps the point.


I think that there is certainly a will to get more interconnectivity going but the multi modal/multi operator tickets aren't advertised enough. In many cases because these are ran by the operators, the PTEs and Councils want nothing to do with them and don't promote them. When they are council ran, the operators try not to issue them as the reimbursement rate is normally quite low (around 30p normally per acceptance)

Bank card capping is coming out extremely slowly though this is limited to the operator. I think the difficulty outside of London is there are so many payment systems, it it hard to cap automatically. London is good in that respect that all money goes into 1 big pot with only 1 payment system on the go so caps can be put into place. Slowly though, I think we might get there. Even train operators are struggling to do it and they are publicly owned. Even Manchester only recently got TapInTapOff cards and for some reason, that is only on the smartcard and doesn't include bank cards.


This is an interesting point. I think the issue is both operators and councils here though not working in partnership to deliver these changes. Bus companies call for change and then 5 years later when demand has vastly changed, you get shiny bus stops and bus priority. It's no good when it's too late. The infrastructure improvements need to be done with bus operators to ensure that improvements will be used long term so it's not a wasted investment. Councils need to act quicker and deliver improvements when they are needed and not 5 years too late when all the demand has gone and the bus is close to withdrawal.

Agree with virtually everything you've said.

My hope is that advances in technology will permit both fare capping and also help the apportionment of revenues for multi operator ticketing. You are spot on that the latter area is something where you often have multi operator tickets but because they're never publicised by operators as they prefer to push their ticket and retain all the revenue/

 

[py_megapixel]

You might want to go and check out the Yorkshire Tiger thread which shows that a new tendered route runs 5 minutes behind a commercial service. Tender timetables are obviously decided and approved by the local authorities so if you think that it will get any better if buses were in public hands, you have a lot to learn.

But if the local authority moved their bus back then the commercial operator would just retime theirs to run in front of it again??

How many times do I have to say that I don't think buses have to be public? They just have to be centrally planned and controlled so that they are seamless to use. If private operators want to form a partnership to make that happen then I'd welcome that too.

SOME competition is silly, needless and causes issues. However, there are plenty of examples where competition works and encourages usage. In Manchester, the Uni is a big competition area between First, Stagecoach and GoNorthWest. Each of them competes for the shorter distance travellers into the city centre however each company then goes different ways out of the city and serves different markets so while there is competition for some sections, it does allow for much better longer distance journey opportunities.

That's not a great example. I have family living in that area so I visit often, and what actually happens at the UoM is that all the students wait for the Magic Bus because it's cheaper, overcrowding those buses, and everybody else just gets the first bus they see, unless they are going beyond Didsbury or Piccadilly, in which case they are basically limited to just one operator. This means loads aren't evenly spread between buses, which is bad.

In the peak, I have literally sat on the near empty top deck of a 42 ahead of a packed Magic Bus. It's madness.

Integration between routes is good but then you end up with an American style operation whereby routes don't run to the times people want them but instead end up running so 3 people can change between buses to go shopping once per week. Integration is looked at and bus operators do jump on it if they are made aware. Quite a few times I have seen operators have changed times and not realised where connections are being made, they have then changed the times quite quickly to accommodate the connection.

I don't understand what you mean... in the first part you are against buses being timed to make connections then you praise private companies for accommodating connections?

Also you've misunderstood what I mean by integration. I mean fares integration (So if operators A and B both can be used for a journey then a ticket should be valid on both) and also centralised live running information.

For the record, if you say that TFL manages ok. It doesn't. Why do you think they have tens of millions of pounds deficit per year? Because they can't run buses for love nor money. You speak the the majority of native Londoners and they will echo that. The only people who think TFL works perfectly are those who work there, uneducated sheep and those who have limited knowledge of the network and just how badly ran it is.

I think you are mistaking "it runs OK" for "it runs absolutely perfectly"

In central London I don't even have to think about timetables, every journey is a simple flat fare, there's PIS on all buses and many stops, and everything is nicely integrated. Yes it runs to a huge loss and maybe that's something that needs to be fixed. The simplest way to do that would be through a fare increase, which wouldn't actually have to be massive given the sheer volume of journeys every year.

Harder to fix of course is the route planning. However overall I would still say that London buses work better than elsewhere.

 

[RT4038]

But if the local authority moved their bus back then the commercial operator would just retime theirs to run in front of it again??

How many times do I have to say that I don't think buses have to be public? They just have to be centrally planned and controlled so that they are seamless to use. If private operators want to form a partnership to make that happen then I'd welcome that too.


That's not a great example. I have family living in that area so I visit often, and what actually happens at the UoM is that all the students wait for the Magic Bus because it's cheaper, overcrowding those buses, and everybody else just gets the first bus they see, unless they are going beyond Didsbury or Piccadilly, in which case they are basically limited to just one operator. This means loads aren't evenly spread between buses, which is bad.

In the peak, I have literally sat on the near empty top deck of a 42 ahead of a packed Magic Bus. It's madness.


I don't understand what you mean... in the first part you are against buses being timed to make connections then you praise private companies for accommodating connections?

Also you've misunderstood what I mean by integration. I mean fares integration (So if operators A and B both can be used for a journey then a ticket should be valid on both) and also centralised live running information.



I think you are mistaking "it runs OK" for "it runs absolutely perfectly"

In central London I don't even have to think about timetables, every journey is a simple flat fare, there's PIS on all buses and many stops, and everything is nicely integrated. Yes it runs to a huge loss and maybe that's something that needs to be fixed. The simplest way to do that would be through a fare increase, which wouldn't actually have to be massive given the sheer volume of journeys every year.

Harder to fix of course is the route planning. However overall I would still say that London buses work better than elsewhere.

As has been pointed out further up this thread, and on many other threads in the same vein on this forum, the key is money. TfL have had plenty of public money to improve their services over the last two decades, whereas the rest of the country has had very little. Couple this with the high density of population and if you didn't have a system that was the envy of everyone else there would be something very wrong.
However, I suspect that if you live in London and have to use TfL buses you would have plenty to complain about, and their spacing of buses working different routes on the same section of road, and connection timings between routes, is not always too brilliant either, in spite of 'central planning'.
Centralised live running information will come in the provinces as a result of the Bus Services Act.

Fares are a more thorny problem, and again it is money that hampers integration.
The current de-regulated system has its faults, some that could be fixed and some inherent to that system. However, I remain to be convinced that regulation and state control would do any better (different - yes, but not better and probably worse). 56 years of regulation did not bring more fares or timetable integration than we have now. Transport planning and commercial acumen are not usually found together. More money in the current system could make a lot of difference.

Without the availability of copious subsidies, perhaps some tinkering to the current system is required, but not by people with a regulation agenda. And no 'one size fits all' solutions - I do not recognise your Magic Bus issue [ if it is really an issue anyway- you seem to have a comfortable journey on the 42 bus] in the market town that I live.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

As has been pointed out further up this thread, and on many other threads in the same vein on this forum, the key is money. TfL have had plenty of public money to improve their services over the last two decades, whereas the rest of the country has had very little. Couple this with the high density of population and if you didn't have a system that was the envy of everyone else there would be something very wrong.
However, I suspect that if you live in London and have to use TfL buses you would have plenty to complain about, and their spacing of buses working different routes on the same section of road, and connection timings between routes, is not always too brilliant either, in spite of 'central planning'.
Centralised live running information will come in the provinces as a result of the Bus Services Act.

Fares are a more thorny problem, and again it is money that hampers integration.
The current de-regulated system has its faults, some that could be fixed and some inherent to that system. However, I remain to be convinced that regulation and state control would do any better (different - yes, but not better and probably worse). 56 years of regulation did not bring more fares or timetable integration than we have now. Transport planning and commercial acumen are not usually found together. More money in the current system could make a lot of difference.

Without the availability of copious subsidies, perhaps some tinkering to the current system is required, but not by people with a regulation agenda. And no 'one size fits all' solutions - I do not recognise your Magic Bus issue [ if it is really an issue anyway- you seem to have a comfortable journey on the 42 bus] in the market town that I live.

Absolutely spot on. The disparity between what London gets and what the rest of the country receives is telling and, as I said earlier, there's a clear correlation between ridership and expenditure in London.

Also, this line

I think you are mistaking "it runs OK" for "it runs absolutely perfectly"

In central London I don't even have to think about timetables, every journey is a simple flat fare, there's PIS on all buses and many stops, and everything is nicely integrated. Yes it runs to a huge loss and maybe that's something that needs to be fixed. The simplest way to do that would be through a fare increase, which wouldn't actually have to be massive given the sheer volume of journeys every year.

Two things about that comment. Something that maybe needs to be fixed sounds rather blase. And if it is simple, you wonder why they simply just haven't done it?

 

[markymark2000]

But if the local authority moved their bus back then the commercial operator would just retime theirs to run in front of it again??

The commercial route is longstanding and hasn't been changed for a while. The council put out a brand new tender all timed up as they wanted it so the private operators have nothing to do with it. Private operators shouldn't have to adapt their times around LAs who don't have the will power to properly time tenders. For the record,

This thread has more details on it: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/yorkshire-tiger-discussion.151196/page-4#post-4713414

That's not a great example. I have family living in that area so I visit often, and what actually happens at the UoM is that all the students wait for the Magic Bus because it's cheaper, overcrowding those buses, and everybody else just gets the first bus they see, unless they are going beyond Didsbury or Piccadilly, in which case they are basically limited to just one operator. This means loads aren't evenly spread between buses, which is bad.

In the peak, I have literally sat on the near empty top deck of a 42 ahead of a packed Magic Bus. It's madness.

Not the best example but it is an example that people travel longer distances but there is competition for the shorter distance passengers and while yes, many do wait for the Magic bus, I do believe some people use other tickets because they may travel to other areas not served by MagicBuses.

I don't understand what you mean... in the first part you are against buses being timed to make connections then you praise private companies for accommodating connections?

Also you've misunderstood what I mean by integration. I mean fares integration (So if operators A and B both can be used for a journey then a ticket should be valid on both) and also centralised live running information.

American style makes all buses link up regardless of connecting passengers and more 'just in case' but private operators link up routes where connections are actually made and normally this is only done within 10 minutes either side and only if there is enough people changing.

Fare integration is good and operators are trying to make this work but it's difficult since most of the time when there are 2 operators on a route, it's actually as a result of tenders and thus any fare integration there relies on the tenderer. For occasions where 2 commercial routes overlap full time, I can see some appeal of having integrated fares but it is a tough one to make work since you do have some quite nasty competition like Connexions and Transdev. Friendly operators can and do have some ticket acceptance in place through partnerships but on the whole, competition is a good thing and the point of the more restricted fares is to get people onto their service rather than someone elses. IF everyone buys a Transdev ticket and uses it on the Connexions bus, Connexions make no money yet have full buses and so by forcing more integration, you are reducing competition and thus pushing companies out of the industry. It's very visable in some areas how monopolys force higher fares and that is what will happen with more and more fare integration. The only way around it is multi operator tickets by LAs.

I think you are mistaking "it runs OK" for "it runs absolutely perfectly"

In central London I don't even have to think about timetables, every journey is a simple flat fare, there's PIS on all buses and many stops, and everything is nicely integrated. Yes it runs to a huge loss and maybe that's something that needs to be fixed. The simplest way to do that would be through a fare increase, which wouldn't actually have to be massive given the sheer volume of journeys every year.

Harder to fix of course is the route planning. However overall I would still say that London buses work better than elsewhere.

All of the benefits which you cite are the reasons for the deficit. Fare increases discourage usage so then you risk being no better or worse off.
PIS on buses is slowly being rolled out. Not quickly but that is in part because for companies it is more reasons for a bus to not be on the road and for drivers and passengers, it can be blinking annoying. IT's good for occasional passengers but rubbish for regulars and given regulars keep the buses running not occasional passengers, you have to accomodate more for keeping regulars happy and the way to do that is not spam them with announcements every 30 seconds.
PIS on bus stops is upto councils. Again, it is slowly being rolled out but I admit nowhere near at the level it should be. I think it's something like 70% of bus operators have the facilities to offer real time feeds to councils so it's upto councils to pay for and introduce the tech. This point relates also in part to an above discussion about infrastructure where councils don't put infrastructure where it's needed and instead put it where they want and then buses get rerouted and the tech is then useless. All that said, I do think the Gov could do with giving out some infrastructure grant funding to try and kickstart more RTI displays.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you were to put an inbound bus lane on Scotswood Road in Newcastle, it's pretty certain that bus services aren't going to be disappearing from that major trunk route.

You say that, yet for many years Go pulled all their off-peak services from the Scotswood Road, diverting everything via the MetroCentre except a few peak extras.

As for London, yes they have great ridership figures. If you were throwing £742m in subsidy at a city with high population density, you would expect so.

I'm not as familiar with TfL's finances since I left London, does the subsidy still include the cost of the Freedom Pass? I also seem to recall that revenue from Travelcards and mixed caps was mainly allocated to the Tube, but I may be wrong on that.

think it's something like 70% of bus operators have the facilities to offer real time feeds to councils so it's upto councils to pay for and introduce the tech. This point relates also in part to an above discussion about infrastructure where councils don't put infrastructure where it's needed and instead put it where they want and then buses get rerouted and the tech is then useless.

That's slightly misrepresenting my point, which was that operators demand infrastructure, but have nothing to tie them to usage of that infrastructure once it is installed. And if councils insisted on quality contracts and financial penalties for abandoning infrastructure, you'd never hear the end of the whingeing from operators.

The disconnect between operator and infrastructure remains a big issue in general. Take PIS as an example; councils paying for PIS is simply advertising a commercial business for free, but operators can't install their own kit, even if they wanted to (and many don't). So it doesn't get done. I'm not sure how to fix that, really.

It's very visable in some areas how monopolys force higher fares and that is what will happen with more and more fare integration.

I'm not sure how you have reached that conclusion, particularly with the example you gave. The PTE multi-operator ticket actually acts as a brake on excessive fares in West Yorkshire, you'll notice the First ticket is only a few pence cheaper than the MetroDay. You'll notice how Transdev fares are much higher outside West Yorkshire too. It is the same in Manchester, you'll note the Rotala day ticket is again only a few pence cheaper than the multi-operator ticket.

Not all operators price their tickets so cynically- Stagecoach Manchester don't- but some operators can so do.

The issue is that, away from PTE areas, you don't generally get multi-operator tickets. The cost of having to use two operators becomes prohibitively expensive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue is that, away from PTE areas, you don't generally get multi-operator tickets. The cost of having to use two operators becomes prohibitively expensive.

Indeed. There are two reasonable solutions to that - one of them is to create bodies for those areas (or one nationally), the other is to go the way of the OV-Chipkaart and have a simple kilometric system[1] and no season tickets at all, so you just pay for what you use with no "loading" or discounts for multiple uses of that operator and no over-inflating of single fares. That could also be used for ENCTS, with the cardholder's home Council automatically being charged for the journey made again on a kilometric basis.

[1] There is the "starting rate" of a connectional journey, but it's not hard to work out how to apportion that.

 

[RT4038]

Indeed. There are two reasonable solutions to that - one of them is to create bodies for those areas (or one nationally), the other is to go the way of the OV-Chipkaart and have a simple kilometric system[1] and no season tickets at all, so you just pay for what you use with no "loading" or discounts for multiple uses of that operator and no over-inflating of single fares. That could also be used for ENCTS, with the cardholder's home Council automatically being charged for the journey made again on a kilometric basis.

[1] There is the "starting rate" of a connectional journey, but it's not hard to work out how to apportion that.

I think there are a number of issues
1. Wherever you are there will be boundaries for the 'bodies', and also boundaries for the ticket types. In the 'shire' areas this would be very complicated indeed.
2. Currently bus companies have 'x'% of passengers who buy tickets of two operators (because they change buses, or perhaps have two competing routes). Bus Companies do not know how many passengers this may be, or what it is worth. They are reluctant to take the risk of reducing these fares in the hope that it attracts more passengers, because in their experience more passengers are attracted over time but not enough to make up the loss.
3. The OV-Chipkaart system does not work very well for operators in a de-regulated environment. Operator specific tickets are the only way, in a competitive environment, to get customers to stand back from the first bus that comes and wait for your bus. Nowadays, generally the big operators do not engage much in 'creaming' operations between themselves, but if it became attractive for small operators to register journeys just in front of the big boys at busy times (because they'll get the 'OV' share), the big bus companies will be threatened with bankruptcy.

Fares is not just about giving passengers cheap rides. They have to pay for the operators costs too!

 

[RT4038]

You say that, yet for many years Go pulled all their off-peak services from the Scotswood Road, diverting everything via the MetroCentre except a few peak extras.



I'm not as familiar with TfL's finances since I left London, does the subsidy still include the cost of the Freedom Pass? I also seem to recall that revenue from Travelcards and mixed caps was mainly allocated to the Tube, but I may be wrong on that.



That's slightly misrepresenting my point, which was that operators demand infrastructure, but have nothing to tie them to usage of that infrastructure once it is installed. And if councils insisted on quality contracts and financial penalties for abandoning infrastructure, you'd never hear the end of the whingeing from operators.

The disconnect between operator and infrastructure remains a big issue in general. Take PIS as an example; councils paying for PIS is simply advertising a commercial business for free, but operators can't install their own kit, even if they wanted to (and many don't). So it doesn't get done. I'm not sure how to fix that, really.



I'm not sure how you have reached that conclusion, particularly with the example you gave. The PTE multi-operator ticket actually acts as a brake on excessive fares in West Yorkshire, you'll notice the First ticket is only a few pence cheaper than the MetroDay. You'll notice how Transdev fares are much higher outside West Yorkshire too. It is the same in Manchester, you'll note the Rotala day ticket is again only a few pence cheaper than the multi-operator ticket.

Not all operators price their tickets so cynically- Stagecoach Manchester don't- but some operators can so do.

The issue is that, away from PTE areas, you don't generally get multi-operator tickets. The cost of having to use two operators becomes prohibitively expensive.

Unfortunately, infrastructure will fall into disuse, sometimes without ever having been used. There are plenty of examples of railways built but never opened, or abandoned/hardly used after only a few years. (Bletchley flyover, various links to HS1/Waterloo International, big viaduct near Bordesley etc).
I am sure you would not really suggest that services should be routed via infrastructure just because it is there, rather than keeping up with changing traffic patterns? It is a problem, but what is the solution?

I wouldn't spend any money on stop mounted PIS - smart phones have already rendered this obsolete

Please see post #136 about multi-operator tickets - single operator tickets are the only way, in a de-regulated environment, that bus companies can get passengers to stand back from the first bus that comes and wait for their bus. Just think of the proliferation of small companies buses 'creaming' passengers if they can get an equal bite of the waiting passengers. Go to just about any 3rd world city to see what would happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please see post #136 about multi-operator tickets - single operator tickets are the only way, in a de-regulated environment, that bus companies can get passengers to stand back from the first bus that comes and wait for their bus.

This is not, other than for that operator, a desirable outcome, so no effort should be placed into encouraging it.

Just think of the proliferation of small companies buses 'creaming' passengers if they can get an equal bite of the waiting passengers. Go to just about any 3rd world city to see what would happen.

Wouldn't happen because passenger volumes aren't high enough to sustain it other than on a few core routes.

 

[RT4038]

This is not, other than for that operator, a desirable outcome, so no effort should be placed into encouraging it.



Wouldn't happen because passenger volumes aren't high enough to sustain it other than on a few core routes.

Sorry, but bus operators have got to make enough money to stay in business. The requirements of the operator and the customer have to coincide otherwise no service.

But it would start happening - every Tom, Dick and Harry will start putting their School buses out on the road at busy times to cream off a few passengers. Which will bankrupt the mainstream operator. Then what have you got left?
What is the one single thing that has enabled Travel West Midlands to survive? Their single operator TravelCard.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Operator specific tickets are the only way, in a competitive environment, to get customers to stand back from the first bus that comes and wait for your bus. Nowadays, generally the big operators do not engage much in 'creaming' operations between themselves, but if it became attractive for small operators to register journeys just in front of the big boys at busy times (because they'll get the 'OV' share), the big bus companies will be threatened with bankruptcy.

Fares is not just about giving passengers cheap rides. They have to pay for the operators costs too

I'm not sure I agree with this, my experience is different.

As you say, there is very little direct competition between operators. Operators have, by and large, carved out their own little bubbles. A lack of integrated ticketing doesn't prevent on-road competition, it simply discourages multi-operator travel between bubbles.

On-road competition will occur where competition can be supported. There are precious few examples of this, and these tend to be on high volume corridors. My experience of direct competition in the north east is that people will get the first bus *to* town then worry about the return later. It was similar in Oxford when Go and Stagecoach more aggressively competed with each other. This was my experience in Manchester too along Oxford Road.

I wouldn't for one second expect operators to exploit integrated ticketing for competition, because it wouldn't make them any money. Most routes will only support a certain number of passengers, and independents don't have the money or resources to aggressively over-bus a route or even to match turn-up-and-go frequencies on the most profitable routes. One independent bus an hour is nothing when the incumbent operator is running ten.

What integrated ticketing may do is encourage operators to come in on the more marginal routes or at more marginal times. As standalone routes they won't make money, as people won't pay twice to go the last mile or get a late evening bus, but as part of an integrated ticketing system they might. In Newcastle I never used the tendered services to my house because my Megarider wasn't valid on them, even though one tendered route was more convenient to the local supermarket than the commercial route which stopped 1/2 mile away from it. But with an integrated ticket I would have, increasing revenue and cutting subsidy costs. You see the same in West Yorkshire where huge chunks of the evening network is run by Yorkshire Tiger or TLC and this has a negative impact on usage.

ENCTS hasn't encouraged aggressive on-road competition, after all.

Equally, a lack of integrated ticketing on the Cambridge Busway causes all sorts of fun as the minority operator, Whippet, price their ticket cheaper than Stagecoach to encourage custom.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This is not, other than for that operator, a desirable outcome, so no effort should be placed into encouraging it.



Wouldn't happen because passenger volumes aren't high enough to sustain it other than on a few core routes.

Yes but you can see why operators wish to protect their market share by having single operator tickets and to focus on travel tickets. That much is obvious.

I have no issue with single operator tickets per se, as long as there is a multi operator alternative. I don't have an issue in that multi operator version being marginally more expensive; it's not a case of penalising passengers but just a reflect (as in every facet of life) that the greater convenience or flexibility something has, the more it usually costs.

The big issue is publicity. Major operators (who have their own day ticket) almost never promote the alternatives and the poor local authority has neither the wit nor money to do so. For instance, look at Worcester. There's a First day ticket for £4.70. Googling "day bus ticket Worcester" invariably defaults to First's website and when you search their tickets for adult day, it will show the First one at £4.70. Only when looking at ticket types will you find a reference to Connecta tickets in the side bar....something most people would simply scroll past. This is something replicated across the country.

The number of counties or towns with multi-operator tickets is actually quite numerous but unless you're Barry Doe, you'd be hard pressed to know about half of them!


As for you thinking that competition would not proliferate because passenger volumes aren't high enough......Certainly less so nowadays but to think it would just be a few core routes is perhaps understating it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But it would start happening - every Tom, Dick and Harry will start putting their School buses out on the road at busy times to cream off a few passengers.

If there were money to be made, they would already do so. But they don't, not least because school times and peak times neatly coincide.

It's this little fiefdom attitude that has always been prevalent in UK transport that causes the issues. And this isn't even a private/public thing: the NBC and the PTEs/municipals couldn't ever work together, and look how long it took BR to finally start accepting the LT Capitalcard.

The main competitor to a bus company is not another bus company, it is the private car. And this little fiefdom attitude encourages car use. In Tyne and Wear there is a multi-operator ticket, priced £8 and roughly double what the operator specific tickets are priced at (usually about £4). So when I went to the MetroCentre- which requires at least two operators- I drove. So instead of getting, say, 40% or 50% of £5 they get 100% of nothing.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

What integrated ticketing may do is encourage operators to come in on the more marginal routes or at more marginal times. As standalone routes they won't make money, as people won't pay twice to go the last mile or get a late evening bus, but as part of an integrated ticketing system they might. In Newcastle I never used the tendered services to my house because my Megarider wasn't valid on them, even though one tendered route was more convenient to the local supermarket than the commercial route which stopped 1/2 mile away from it. But with an integrated ticket I would have, increasing revenue and cutting subsidy costs. You see the same in West Yorkshire where huge chunks of the evening network is run by Yorkshire Tiger or TLC and this has a negative impact on usage.

Yes but most of those instances are where the service is tendered anyway. I can't recall why it isn't possible for the tendering party (LA/PTE) to specify that all tickets are to be accepted as part of the tender conditions.

In Cornwall, they got a chunk of cash from govt to improve bus services and connectivity. You now have a routes (including the main route through the county) that is operated by First during most of the day save for a few evening journeys operated by Go Ahead but the council didn't specify that any successful party must accept First tickets on a supported journey.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes but most of those instances are where the service is tendered anyway. I can't recall why it isn't possible for the tendering party (LA/PTE) to specify that all tickets are to be accepted as part of the tender conditions.

It's possible but it makes the tender more expensive. After all, First aren't going to hand over revenue for a service they don't run- and nor would I expect them to.

I don't have an issue in that multi operator version being marginally more expensive; it's not a case of penalising passengers but just a reflect (as in every facet of life) that the greater convenience or flexibility something has, the more it usually costs.

The issue is that the multi-operator tickets are so much more expensive that they're largely useless except as a distress purchase. Take Middlesbrough- a Stagecoach Megarider is £13, Arriva tickets start at £17, but the multi-operator is £21 or £29 depending on area.

 

[RT4038]

I'm not sure I agree with this, my experience is different.

As you say, there is very little direct competition between operators. Operators have, by and large, carved out their own little bubbles. A lack of integrated ticketing doesn't prevent on-road competition, it simply discourages multi-operator travel between bubbles.

On-road competition will occur where competition can be supported. There are precious few examples of this, and these tend to be on high volume corridors. My experience of direct competition in the north east is that people will get the first bus *to* town then worry about the return later. It was similar in Oxford when Go and Stagecoach more aggressively competed with each other. This was my experience in Manchester too along Oxford Road.

I wouldn't for one second expect operators to exploit integrated ticketing for competition, because it wouldn't make them any money. Most routes will only support a certain number of passengers, and independents don't have the money or resources to aggressively over-bus a route or even to match turn-up-and-go frequencies on the most profitable routes. One independent bus an hour is nothing when the incumbent operator is running ten.

What integrated ticketing may do is encourage operators to come in on the more marginal routes or at more marginal times. As standalone routes they won't make money, as people won't pay twice to go the last mile or get a late evening bus, but as part of an integrated ticketing system they might. In Newcastle I never used the tendered services to my house because my Megarider wasn't valid on them, even though one tendered route was more convenient to the local supermarket than the commercial route which stopped 1/2 mile away from it. But with an integrated ticket I would have, increasing revenue and cutting subsidy costs. You see the same in West Yorkshire where huge chunks of the evening network is run by Yorkshire Tiger or TLC and this has a negative impact on usage.

ENCTS hasn't encouraged aggressive on-road competition, after all.

Equally, a lack of integrated ticketing on the Cambridge Busway causes all sorts of fun as the minority operator, Whippet, price their ticket cheaper than Stagecoach to encourage custom.

A lack of integrated ticketing doesn't prevent on-road competition, but it sure discourages it. If an operator puts his bus at a stop before the big operator's bus comes and a large proportion of the passengers stand back because they have a single operator return or multi-journey ticket it won't be worth his while to run. But if the that operator got money for every passenger that boarded (through some kind of integrated ticketing system) then it surely would be worth running. In that case, then see how many school buses start doing 'creaming' runs around 5pm.

Presumably there was a multi-operator ticket available in Newcastle for you to travel on both Stagecoach and the tendered route? But you chose not to buy it. I can't see how some other kind of integrated ticket would have increased revenue and cut subsidy costs. You didn't pay for the multi-operator ticket (thereby paying the extra revenue). If you could have used the megarider on the tendered service, where would the extra revenue have come from (unless the megarider was more expensive to cover the extra validity, in which case isn't that what the multi-operator ticket does?). I don't understand this.

ENCTS is not a every passenger journey re-imbursement scheme, does not work in the same way, and very complicated for a small operator to claim for what is anyway a much discounted rate. Not surprised it is not worth chasing after.

 

[RT4038]

The main competitor to a bus company is not another bus company, it is the private car. And this little fiefdom attitude encourages car use. In Tyne and Wear there is a multi-operator ticket, priced £8 and roughly double what the operator specific tickets are priced at (usually about £4). So when I went to the MetroCentre- which requires at least two operators- I drove. So instead of getting, say, 40% or 50% of £5 they get 100% of nothing.

But that is a bit like saying the main competitor to a High Street clothing shop is not another High Street clothing shop, it is Amazon. You may well be right, but you've still got to make sure that what trade you have got doesn't go to the other shop. Otherwise you're out of business.

The multi-operator ticket issue is a vexing one, with no really clear answer. Making a journey involving two different companies is, for an individual bus company, a different proposition to tickets which are interavailable on competing services. A problem being that your customers will not understand the difference! The only solutions acceptable to bus operators are likely to be called collusion and not acceptable to the competition authorities!

In your scenario, the bus operators jointly have lost out, but it is likely that any change would allow scenarios which would threaten their existing revenue.

It is no good ignoring your fiefdom if doing the best thing for your customers actually puts you out of business.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that is a bit like saying the main competitor to a High Street clothing shop is not another High Street clothing shop, it is Amazon. You may well be right, but you've still got to make sure that what trade you have got doesn't go to the other shop. Otherwise you're out of business.

But what this highlights is that the best solution is for the "high street clothing shops" to gang up on Amazon! This is why I believe the aspects of competition law relating to monopolies and mergers should be entirely removed from public transport operation (though those regarding sharp practices like running 30 seconds in front at a loss-leader fare would remain).

 

[RT4038]

But what this highlights is that the best solution is for the "high street clothing shops" to gang up on Amazon! This is why I believe the aspects of competition law relating to monopolies and mergers should be entirely removed from public transport operation (though those regarding sharp practices like running 30 seconds in front at a loss-leader fare would remain).

With my robber baron hat on I would completely agree with you - carve up the areas that are profitable between a few of us, (giving us monopolies and integrated fare structures), gang up on any newcomers to the High Street [not letting them into our cartel] before going for Amazon, run rings round the rules regarding sharp practices as they would be fairly blunt because one size won't fit all. Sounds ideal. Sounds like high fares and poor service could get some short term profits before tackling Amazon. Maybe enough so I can retire first.

There are all sorts of complicated considerations before that kind of relaxation is likely.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It's possible but it makes the tender more expensive. After all, First aren't going to hand over revenue for a service they don't run- and nor would I expect them to.



The issue is that the multi-operator tickets are so much more expensive that they're largely useless except as a distress purchase. Take Middlesbrough- a Stagecoach Megarider is £13, Arriva tickets start at £17, but the multi-operator is £21 or £29 depending on area.

It may make the tender more expensive but by how much? After all, if people aren't going to pay twice, it becomes rather academic.

Even the example that you provide in Middlesbrough is difficult to truly gauge. To be honest, £13.50 for a weeks' travel is actually pretty phenomenal value! Each day, you can travel for less than a Costa! The step up to an all operator ticket does seem substantial but then again, the £21 smart zone one does cover a considerably larger area than the Megarider. The disparity is probably a bit large but it's not like for like.

Of course the disparity is greater when you compare the £17 with the £29 one, not withstanding that the Megarider means you can travel from Hartlepool to Middlesbrough daily for £3.40 (if you work the standard 5 day week) which again is pretty good value. However, we're again not comparing like with like.

The multi operator ticket is a blunt instrument and that is evident in that if you don't have the Stockton and Middlesbrough council areas (1) which equates to the £13 Megarider area, then the only other one that covers those AND Hartlepool (2) also includes Darlington (3), Redcar and East Cleveland and even part of the Hambleton area of North Yorkshire (4). It isn't very nuanced so perhaps Tees Valley need to have a zonal ticket so that the disparity isn't so pronounced. I don't know why it isn't.


As a comparison, the First weekly ticket in Bristol £18.90. The multi operator Bristol Rider ticket is £20.00 but then again, it's not well publicised (especially by First!)

 

[RT4038]

As a comparison, the First weekly ticket in Bristol £18.90. The multi operator Bristol Rider ticket is £20.00 but then again, it's not well publicised (especially by First!)

Because, I guess, First get less than £18.90 per multi-operator ticket?