Why do UK bus operators not use basic measures used everywhere else to speed the service?

[py_megapixel]

Does anyone have any idea why Stagecoach ticket machines in Manchester take twice as long to scan ITSO cards as elsewhere in the country?

You put the card on, the machine lights up and beeps. In most other places you can take the card off at this point and walk to your seat, but in Manchester you have to wait for a second beep and the light to change colour, which takes about another couple of seconds.

If you take the card off after the first beep you get the message "CARD ERROR - SEE DRIVER" and then the driver has to do something which seems to entail repeatedly pressing a button until it resets.

Given people not used to this, including myself, are caught out by it fairly commonly, just changing the machine software to immediately accept a new card after a failed read would have an effect on dwell, albeit not a massive one.

 

[johncrossley]

and Swiss railways are doing it mentioned above somewhere I think.

They call it "Easyride". It covers all public transport in Switzerland. You could do a trip right across the country using various buses and trains.

EasyRide – the ticket that does things your way | SBB

With EasyRide you check in before your journey and check out again afterwards. EasyRide recognises the route travelled and calculates the lowest price.

www.sbb.ch

Would you like to travel by public transport without having to worry about tickets – just get on and go? Without even having to decide where you are going beforehand? That is all quite simple with EasyRide. Because you check in with a swipe before your journey and check out again with a swipe afterwards. And at the end of the day, EasyRide calculates the lowest price.

 

[py_megapixel]

They call it "Easyride". It covers all public transport in Switzerland. You could do a trip right across the country using various buses and trains.

EasyRide – the ticket that does things your way | SBB

With EasyRide you check in before your journey and check out again afterwards. EasyRide recognises the route travelled and calculates the lowest price.

www.sbb.ch

Unfortunately this country absolutely refuses to integrate bus fares with rail ones, even where the bus and rail services are run by the same organisation. I think it comes from a kind of daft snobbery; an assumption that buses are inherently infeeior to trains, when in reality they're just different, and if we could be bothered finding and operating them properly, they wouldn't be.

So, although it would be the ultimate in convenience and would improve dwell times, I don't imagine it ever happening in this country.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And then you have the issue of centre doors with ramps where, because it's been the accepted practice, some bus stations have been so designed to only accommodate single door vehicles as @richw mentioned

Centre doors don't preclude the ramp and wheelchair accommodation being at the front. It's the London norm but it doesn't have to be the same elsewhere.

Something I've been banging on about for ages (sorry folks) but even a 7/7/7 basis (i.e. 0700 to 1900, 7 days a week) would be better than the piecemeal pattern of ones. In a number of places, they are 1630 to 1900, so they don't even cover the school run! Now that would certainly speed up bus services!!

I've always taken the view that all bus lanes should be 24/7, on the basis that if the road isn't busy it doesn't matter if there is an unused lane, but if the road is busy then by definition the bus lane is necessary. Parking bays, if you are going to have them, should be built "inside" of the bus lane rather than blocking it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2022 ==

Unfortunately this country absolutely refuses to integrate bus fares with rail ones, even where the bus and rail services are run by the same organisation. I think it comes from a kind of daft snobbery; an assumption that buses are inherently infeeior to trains, when in reality they're just different, and if we could be bothered finding and operating them properly, they wouldn't be.

So, although it would be the ultimate in convenience and would improve dwell times, I don't imagine it ever happening in this country.

A lot of it comes from competition law, which I personally believe should be removed entirely from public passenger transport, because a single operator or cartel is almost always of benefit, not disbenefit, to the passenger, like pretty much no other line of business. It needs to be accepted that even outside of a regulated system the competitor is the car and taxi, and the omnipresence of those modes mean it is basically impossible to overcharge to excess for fares in a monopoly situation. Added to that, small operators rarely bring benefits to the commercial bus market - most often they just provide low quality, low price services which damage the overall product in many different ways. They only really bring benefits for tenders or where the big boys aren't interested, and again whether there was competition law or not the big boys would leave them alone, as they do in rural Wales for instance.

One for another thread, though.

In fact, let's have such a thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...negative-in-commercial-bus-operations.227293/

 

[Andyh82]

Very common indeed in places like for example Newcastle, where a huge number of routes run cross-city with layovers at the edge of the suburbs and not in the centre. Few people would ever use them end-to-end.

Yes and it’s the same in Leeds, but in reality there are probably only a small number of stops within the city centre where vast numbers are boarding and alighting, numbers so vast where a second door would have any benefit.

 

[RT4038]

Unfortunately this country absolutely refuses to integrate bus fares with rail ones, even where the bus and rail services are run by the same organisation. I think it comes from a kind of daft snobbery; an assumption that buses are inherently infeeior to trains, when in reality they're just different, and if we could be bothered finding and operating them properly, they wouldn't be.

So, although it would be the ultimate in convenience and would improve dwell times, I don't imagine it ever happening in this country.

I do not think it will come until rail and bus services are being funded from the same pot [i.e. the same person responsible for the day-to-day budget] (not necessarily the same as one 'overall organisation') and decisions are being taken for the overall good of that one pot, rather than the interests of a particular mode or another.

Currently I think we only have two organisations where the funding of bus and rail services are possibly from the same pot - TfL and TfW. TfL has some partial fares integration (in Travelcards and the like) and TfW have the possibility of the same pot from Welsh local trains and TrawsCymru services. (Don't think it is the same pot yet, however, and it is not the same pot for tickets from the wider rail network.

I am really not sure it is the ultimate in 'convenience' as such (buying a separate bus ticket on board with a payment card is very convenient)- it is more about cheaper overall journeys and connectional guarantees, both of which cost money (reduced revenue and administrative payout / staff on hand to organise). In the longer term there may be increased ridership overall, but the short term will see existing patrons pay less and get compensation / travel arrangements, which needs to be funded somehow.

A lot of it comes from competition law, which I personally believe should be removed entirely from public passenger transport, because a single operator or cartel is almost always of benefit, not disbenefit, to the passenger, like pretty much no other line of business. It needs to be accepted that even outside of a regulated system the competitor is the car and taxi, and the omnipresence of those modes mean it is basically impossible to overcharge to excess for fares in a monopoly situation. Added to that, small operators rarely bring benefits to the commercial bus market - most often they just provide low quality, low price services which damage the overall product in many different ways. They only really bring benefits for tenders or where the big boys aren't interested, and again whether there was competition law or not the big boys would leave them alone, as they do in rural Wales for instance.

One for another thread, though.

In fact, let's have such a thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...negative-in-commercial-bus-operations.227293/

I am not really sure it is much to do with competition law - it is the responsibility for funding that is the issue. The railway does not want to get less money for their part of the through ticket, and the bus company doesn't either. Neither want additional responsibility/ liability in the case of broken connections. I should think neither much want the responsibility of an addition of a million bus stops to the database and be responsible for the fare setting either, without creating more undercutting/ split ticketing etc issues either with rail or the local bus fares.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Centre doors don't preclude the ramp and wheelchair accommodation being at the front. It's the London norm but it doesn't have to be the same elsewhere.

No but as was said earlier, a centrally located wheelchair ramp and unfolded buggies was to be solved by this (#48)

I am not really sure it is much to do with competition law - it is the responsibility for funding that is the issue. The railway does not want to get less money for their part of the through ticket, and the bus company doesn't either. Neither want additional responsibility/ liability in the case of broken connections. I should think neither much want the responsibility of an addition of a million bus stops to the database and be responsible for the fare setting either, without creating more undercutting/ split ticketing etc issues either with rail or the local bus fares.

Indeed, and we should remember that in the days before competition law, the halcyon sepia-tinted days of regulation, there were precious few examples of integration. They were still separate organisations with their own agendas.

Tyne and Wear was held up as a beacon of integration (and we don't wish to head into that age-old rabbit hole) and the integration of bus and Metro was genuinely beneficial in many ways. However, even then, national rail was barely integrated into the regional network. Can't recall when TWPTE took responsibility for the Sunderland line but it was never integrated as Metro and Bus (and Ferry) were.

You're right in that often, it's different funding pots, competing visions of what good looks like, and not competition per se where the issues lie.

 

[johncrossley]

I do not think it will come until rail and bus services are being funded from the same pot [i.e. the same person responsible for the day-to-day budget] (not necessarily the same as one 'overall organisation') and decisions are being taken for the overall good of that one pot, rather than the interests of a particular mode or another.

How are the pots organised in Switzerland? If you go back to the 90s when rail privatisation was being considered, the existence of several different train companies in Switzerland was used as a supporting factor in favour of rail privatisation when people became concerned about the possibility of fragmentation if rail privatisation happened. Fragmentation of routes and ticketing, despite being counterproductive, is popular in Britain even within a single mode and within a single town, for example buses in Oxford or Bournemouth.

 

[RT4038]

How are the pots organised in Switzerland? If you go back to the 90s when rail privatisation was being considered, the existence of several different train companies in Switzerland was used as a supporting factor in favour of rail privatisation when people became concerned about the possibility of fragmentation if rail privatisation happened. Fragmentation of routes and ticketing, despite being counterproductive, is popular in Britain even within a single mode and within a single town, for example buses in Oxford or Bournemouth.

In a similar way to that of Germany, without the long distance services being nominally separate and commercial.

As with Brexit, anything vaguely appears to be relevant can be used to get the concept across the line, even if it is not really. Several different companies providing services with a common fare structure and funding arrangement, not competing with each other is/was the Swiss model, but not the proposed and subsequently used UK model.
Competing with each other, separate budgeting/pot responsibilities and financial performance priorities is the UK cultural way of running businesses, and this, in the public transport context, results in fragmentation.

 

[Kremlin Stooge]

I don't live in Bristol, so have no dog in this fight, but Bristol congestion is some of the worst of any British city I've been in

It's maybe because so much middle/longer distance traffic is filtered through a couple of major roundabouts (?), but it's dreadful

Whereas anyone doing a longer distance journey will avoid central London

I think it is probably more to do with crossing points of the city’s various waterways (the Floating Harbour, the River Avon ‘New Cut’, the Feeder, and to a lesser extent, the River Frome) and how the road network is oriented around these points. Having said that, local areas away from the city centre (Kingswood, Shirehampton and Cribbs Causeway for example) can and do clog up without warning at any time of day, not just the peak hours.

No amount of speedier boarding/alighting measures, or speedier ticket processing will make journeys reliably quicker or save on the PVR, as things currently stand in Bristol at least.

 

[philthetube]

It really doesn't. Select route number/direction. Select boarding stop from a list of all stops on that route. Select alighting stop from a list of all stops after the previously selected one. Be shown fare. Click to pay. Get barcoded ticket on phone.

It is about as simple as you can possibly imagine compared with railway ticketing, and railway tickets are sold via apps.

Probably need a map, otherwise you need to know the name of the stop you want.

90%of people know where they are going, just the odd one would need to ask.

Ticketer machines seem to be set by default to... cash payment.

--------

What the industry needs is punters back on buses again (London included), before worrying about stuff like dwell times.

Every second counts!


That raises the question though why Vix machines are so much quicker and Transmach machines marginally quicker. Transmach is only slowed down by the silly ticket printer which prints towards the driver, not the passenger.
I know that one of the things which slows down Ticketer is the fact the driver selects the ticket, you then have to place your card on the reader, the machine then has to recognise it, the driver then clicks to approve the card payment rather than cash payment. It's the additional step of the driver having to approve the payment which has it's pros and cons. It enables issues to be resolved prior to the payment processing but for the 99.9% of occasions where there isn't an issue, this means nothing and does add additional dwell time.

I have been using ticketer hand held machines for the last three months, tram conducting.

With these I have no issues with cash or card fares, if the customer pays cash the ticket is issued normally, if card, they hold the card to the reader, the issue button turns gold and the tickets are issued and charged to the card.


they are also very quick with ENCTS passes, but can be slow with bar codes, depending on how they are held in relation to the phone, though they can be almost instant, and how bright the background light is on phones, I have never used it on any other pass type.

 

[RT4038]

No amount of speedier boarding/alighting measures, or speedier ticket processing will make journeys reliably quicker or save on the PVR, as things currently stand in Bristol at least.

That simply cannot be true. Every second counts. It may not be much of a saving compared to eliminating traffic delays, but the faster the passengers get on/off and the tickets issued, the quicker the bus can move out into the traffic again.

 

[johncrossley]

No amount of speedier boarding/alighting measures, or speedier ticket processing will make journeys reliably quicker or save on the PVR, as things currently stand in Bristol at least.

Take for example a bus stop just before traffic lights. Excess time taken getting passengers on and off and selling tickets over the minimum possible time could mean that you hit a red light instead of a green light, meaning an additional delay of up to two minutes. If several more cars pass the bus while at the bus stop compared to if the bus spent the minimum possible time at the bus stop then if only a few cars get through the lights each time due to congestion, then that you could be delayed by several more minutes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Take for example a bus stop just before traffic lights. Excess time taken getting passengers on and off and selling tickets over the minimum possible time could mean that you hit a red light instead of a green light, meaning an additional delay of up to two minutes. If several more cars pass the bus while at the bus stop compared to if the bus spent the minimum possible time at the bus stop then if only a few cars get through the lights each time due to congestion, then that you could be delayed by several more minutes.

What you hit at a given set of lights (where they aren't controlled in the bus's favour) is totally random, so this would even out.

More cars getting in front would make a negative difference, though, yes.

 

[johncrossley]

What you hit at a given set of lights (where they aren't controlled in the bus's favour) is totally random, so this would even out.

If you spend so long time at the bus stop that the lights turn to green you will only get the slight benefit of not starting from a standing start, but that would often be outweighed by more cars getting in front.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Clearly, fast boarding IS a benefit to operators. That's why there is the push to get people to use m-tickets (as well as benefits in terms of reducing fraud and theft), and TOTO is the next technological move forward on that. Dual doors ARE a benefit but often, that pro brings too many cons in terms of the reasons we have already discussed (loss of capacity, vehicle redeployment, bus stop/station design) so it doesn't get over the cost benefit analysis.

Of greater importance is just the (less than) simple measure of simply speeding up bus services from better bus priority. @Kremlin Stooge is right to highlight Bristol as a case in point. Of all UK cities, it probably has the worst traffic and really does give London a run for its money. It's beset by a road network that is often not even Victorian but Elizabethan or Georgian in origin, and not helped by geography creating pinch points. Also, the amazing capability for a set of temporary lights to screw things up is quite phenomenal. I used to live in the city (and still leave close by) and have always said what a fantastic city it is except for the traffic. However, even some way outside the centre and the river crossings, you have instances like this though.... The road has capacity for two bus lanes but it has a part time one (and we seem to allow taxis in these too for no good reason - it's just a chauffeur driven car) that has designated parking bays in it, and parking on the other side, whilst there's also parking set back from the road.

Operators have rightly been accused of not quickly embracing technology to improve fare collection; often because the payback period just couldn't be justified but as the technology has improved, this is changing. However, that's small beer when you look at the uneven playing field that bus operators work to. Yes, some operators could and should do better but our local authorities (save a few) neither have the ambition nor bravery to make decisions that would actually speed buses up. Again, to emphasise the point, another shot from Bristol. This is the approach to the Bearpit, one of the main transport junctions in Bristol city centre.

And we wonder why buses get stuck in traffic yet concern ourselves with how many doors it might have.

,

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you spend so long time at the bus stop that the lights turn to green you will only get the slight benefit of not starting from a standing start, but that would often be outweighed by more cars getting in front.

The best way to deal with this, of course, is for bus stops to be at junctions (also great for interchange), and for the bus driver to be able to push a button when getting ready to depart which gives the signal to them immediately (after any pedestrian aspect if one is showing, but in immediate priority over any vehicle aspect other than another bus or tram). This is how the Dutch and Germans do it and have for years, and it works spectacularly well - far better than long bus lanes do. It helps that in those countries the law permits white tram signals to be used for buses, so unlike the UK an island is not needed for split bus/car traffic lights.

Bus operators of course can't do this themselves, unlike speeding up boarding, ticketing and alighting. It makes sense for bus operators to do everything in their power to speed operation as well as campaigning for this sort of law change to be introduced so the UK could share in the success of this sort of design.

 

[Kremlin Stooge]

That simply cannot be true. Every second counts. It may not be much of a saving compared to eliminating traffic delays, but the faster the passengers get on/off and the tickets issued, the quicker the bus can move out into the traffic again.

Take for example a bus stop just before traffic lights. Excess time taken getting passengers on and off and selling tickets over the minimum possible time could mean that you hit a red light instead of a green light, meaning an additional delay of up to two minutes. If several more cars pass the bus while at the bus stop compared to if the bus spent the minimum possible time at the bus stop then if only a few cars get through the lights each time due to congestion, then that you could be delayed by several more minutes.

Well, obviously everyone is entitled to their own individual beliefs. Some beliefs can be based on theory, others can be based on direct experience...

From my time, any saving from reducing passenger tardiness in boarding/alighting, or ticket processing would have made damn all difference to the schedules, but this, of course, is just one driver’s experience in one (heavily congested) city.

 

[stuu]

Well, obviously everyone is entitled to their own individual beliefs. Some beliefs can be based on theory, others can be based on direct experience...

From my time, any saving from reducing passenger tardiness in boarding/alighting, or ticket processing would have made damn all difference to the schedules, but this, of course, is just one driver’s experience in one (heavily congested) city.

That just cannot possibly be true. The time taken between bus stops will not be changed by the length of time spent at each bus stop, therefore if the time spent at each bus stop is reduced, then journey times will be shorter. Saving e.g. 30 seconds at each of 20 stops will take 10 minutes off the journey time, regardless of the traffic

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That just cannot possibly be true. The time taken between bus stops will not be changed by the length of time spent at each bus stop, therefore if the time spent at each bus stop is reduced, then journey times will be shorter. Saving e.g. 30 seconds at each of 20 stops will take 10 minutes off the journey time, regardless of the traffic

It isn't correct obviously. Faster boarding will have a benefit but, in defence of @Kremlin Stooge, his experience is from a drivers' perspective, and perhaps it isn't THE most pressing issue for operators. The savings are relatively small and are easily swept away by the delays experienced by drivers from a poorly parked courier van or badly designed road network.

EDIT: there is sometimes a view that UK bus company managers are somehow unaware of what goes on elsewhere in the world; a blinkered, cabal of little Englanders fiercely defending their patch, closed to ideas that were "not invented here" and inexorably managing decline whilst trousering millions in their role as uncaring bus barons. It is nothing of the sort.

I can point you to any number of senior bus managers who are absolutely in favour of growing their businesses but they have precious little support from local or central government who are all too keen to put extra responsibilities on them (clear air zones etc) but are conspicuously less keen to level the playing field and instead continue to promote car use, either explicitly or tacitly

 

[Deerfold]

True, but if those tickets are not designed and tested so people actually do move quicker, this won't work.

For instance, mobile tickets should not require activation (they are scanned now anyway), and should be shown on the front page of the company app with no need to log in to get to them.

I've used the Transdev and Arriva Apps. Both require a log in to be created when you install, but I don't need to log in to use them.

For the Transdev one I have several blocks of tickets I've bought (day tickets of various sizes and singles) so I need to choose the right ticket and activate it. The default on that app is showing you nearby stops.

 

[johncrossley]

There are some things that are little to do with financial support. For example not allowing you to change buses on a single ticket. Some bus company managers, for example in Brighton and Crawley, are aware this can be done.

 

[richw]

That just cannot possibly be true. The time taken between bus stops will not be changed by the length of time spent at each bus stop, therefore if the time spent at each bus stop is reduced, then journey times will be shorter. Saving e.g. 30 seconds at each of 20 stops will take 10 minutes off the journey time, regardless of the traffic

During lockdown when we weren’t carrying many, one day I decided to add up the ‘dwell’ time in the timetable- how long I had to wait to leave at the right time. On a 2 hour route which often struggles for time keeping during normal times, I waited 46 mins in total at stops. This is effectively the time normally used to load passengers.
On the second route I did that day. 90 mins end to end, I waited 29 mins!

 

[Bletchleyite]

During lockdown when we weren’t carrying many, one day I decided to add up the ‘dwell’ time in the timetable- how long I had to wait to leave at the right time. On a 2 hour route which often struggles for time keeping during normal times, I waited 46 mins in total at stops. This is effectively the time normally used to load passengers.
On the second route I did that day. 90 mins end to end, I waited 29 mins!

That's significant, and demonstrates my point quite well that operators could, if they could sort that out, actually save a lot of money by requiring fewer buses to operate a given route, at least if the route is high frequency.

 

[RT4038]

It isn't correct obviously. Faster boarding will have a benefit but, in defence of @Kremlin Stooge, his experience is from a drivers' perspective, and perhaps it isn't THE most pressing issue for operators. The savings are relatively small and are easily swept away by the delays experienced by drivers from a poorly parked courier van or badly designed road network.

The savings may well be relatively small, but they are within the control of the industry. Poorly parked courier vans and badly designed road networks are not, and neither are they going to be solved anytime soon. And let's not get onto road works.... However, if the bus industry is not doing everything they can to speed up journey times, why would other authorities?

That's significant, and demonstrates my point quite well that operators could, if they could sort that out, actually save a lot of money by requiring fewer buses to operate a given route, at least if the route is high frequency.

So it is not dual door buses or ticketing simplifications that are required to speed up services - it is lockdowns. Bet these spectacular time savings are not being achieved today....

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The savings may well be relatively small, but they are within the control of the industry. Poorly parked courier vans and badly designed road networks are not, and neither are they going to be solved anytime soon. And let's not get onto road works.... However, if the bus industry is not doing everything they can to speed up journey times, why would other authorities?

A fair enough point. However, since the adoption of one person operation, dwell times haven't appreciably got worse whilst traffic congestion most certainly has. Also, you can bet your bottom dollar that if bus companies managed to find that nirvana of speedy dwell times with universal off bus ticketing and open boarding, would the local authorities then do likewise.... I might suggest if such progress were to be made, the LAs might conclude that nothing more would need to be done.

Or am I too cynical?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So it is not dual door buses or ticketing simplifications that are required to speed up services - it is lockdowns. Bet these spectacular time savings are not being achieved today....

Of course, what the lockdown demonstrates is what the fastest running time could be. What's then for the bus company to work out is how they could get as close to that as possible by removing friction from the boarding and alighting process. If they want a clue as to how to do that, a day trip to London is very educational, and you can even go for a few drinks and a show afterwards to make it a more enjoyable trip.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Of course, what the lockdown demonstrates is what the fastest running time could be. What's then for the bus company to work out is how they could get as close to that as possible by removing friction from the boarding and alighting process. If they want a clue as to how to do that, a day trip to London is very educational, and you can even go for a few drinks and a show afterwards to make it a more enjoyable trip.

Oh, I don't know. What would Go Ahead, Arriva or Stagecoach know about how London's buses run?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh, I don't know. What would Go Ahead, Arriva or Stagecoach know about how London's buses run?

Depends on their structure. A lot of large companies are siloed to the extent that it might as well be on another planet.

 

[RT4038]

Of course, what the lockdown demonstrates is what the fastest running time could be.

And how is that? There were very few passengers for buses or cars on the road. A similar situation as at 2am on any Monday morning, lockdown or not. The demonstration is next to useless.

If they want a clue as to how to do that, a day trip to London is very educational, and you can even go for a few drinks and a show afterwards to make it a more enjoyable trip.

Travelling on buses in London is a painfully slow, jerky and tedious process, probably not to be sampled too much if you want an enjoyable trip.