Effective methods of reducing bus bunching on high-frequency routes

[Deerfold]

I can't think of a single set that have an overtake in central London, though. To be fair there's mostly not space without legislation to allow for tram lights to be used for the bus; as UK law stands you need an island.

And I didn't suggest there was.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2023 ==

In Leeds, it gets to a certain time of the afternoon and you'll be stood at the bus stop for 40 minutes on a 5-minute headway corridor with bus after bus flying past out of service as the drivers are out of hours. The first bus after the gap gets later and later because of incredibly slow boarding times and only one door. Turning back one or two buses early would be better for the passenger, but I don't think anyone actually monitors the service.

Outside London, operators aren't supposed to regulate services by turning them early. In London they are expected to.

 

[dodecahedron67]

Outside London, operators aren't supposed to regulate services by turning them early. In London they are expected to.

Was going to say, it’s looked down upon to turn services early outside of London. Much more common to deadrun to a point halfway (on cross-city routes) or the other terminus and pick up the trip again there

 

[WAB]

And I didn't suggest there was.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2023 ==


Outside London, operators aren't supposed to regulate services by turning them early. In London they are expected to.

Not really of much use to the passengers though when five or six buses run past out of service, rather than one or two turning short.

 

[Deerfold]

Not really of much use to the passengers though when five or six buses run past out of service, rather than one or two turning short.

They're not supposed to run out of service, either, if that results in missing journeys or part of journeys. The Traffic Commissioner takes a dim view of either.

 

[Andyh82]

In Leeds, it gets to a certain time of the afternoon and you'll be stood at the bus stop for 40 minutes on a 5-minute headway corridor with bus after bus flying past out of service as the drivers are out of hours. The first bus after the gap gets later and later because of incredibly slow boarding times and only one door. Turning back one or two buses early would be better for the passenger, but I don't think anyone actually monitors the service.

Dumping passengers at the side of the road so the bus can turn back isn’t the done thing outside of London

Also the next bus behind going to the exact same destination could be 10/15 mins away

 

[WAB]

Dumping passengers at the side of the road so the bus can turn back isn’t the done thing outside of London

Also the next bus behind going to the exact same destination could be 10/15 mins away

On a 15 minute headway, it'll be right behind or a few minutes a way at most. The passengers can just cope with that, given that they may benefit another day from a bus being turned short. Bunching on a 20 minute headway suggests that either there isn't sufficient running time or turnaround time (but at any rate, the journey should run through on what is effectively medium frequency). Even in London, anything less than every 15 mins very rarely gets curtailed.

They're not supposed to run out of service, either, if that results in missing journeys or part of journeys. The Traffic Commissioner takes a dim view of either.

So everything is just supposed to run late and snowball, until the driver runs out of hours and the rest of the duty's trips are uncovered? All because a short turn or two would give the TC a heart attack (despite them not really caring about anything)?

 

[Deerfold]

So everything is just supposed to run late and snowball, until the driver runs out of hours and the rest of the duty's trips are uncovered? All because a short turn or two would give the TC a heart attack (despite them not really caring about anything)?

I'm not saying whether it's good or bad, just saying what the rules are. The TC expects companies to have the resources to run the whole route except in very unusual circumstances.

If there's regularly the same problem that points to a problem with the timetables.

 

[mb88]

Turning a bus short may inconvenience the small number of people on the bus at the time, but will benefit far more people over the rest of the day that would otherwise be facing a long wait if the bus was allowed to keep running.

Running off service from/to a terminal point has limited effect in my view. Often, there is no ‘quick way’ to get there so the bus simply has to go normal route. The time saved serving bus stops usually isn’t enough to get the bus back on schedule if it’s running very late.

The traffic commissioner would do better to ‘take a dim view’ of operators who fail to do anything to regulate their service instead of those who actively try and provide a service over the whole route instead of letting buses bunch up with massive gaps going the other way.

 

[Megafuss]

The cause of bunching is that a bus gets delayed in traffic and then because it's delayed it picks up more people, which as the Ticketer system is so slow tends to result in a 5-10 second transaction per passenger and it rapidly gets worse.

While it's impossible to fix it 100%, the mitigations are the same as anything else regarding speed of operation:

1. Properly designed bus lanes (almost none of these are to be found in the UK, but a day riding round a German city will change your mind on how effective they can be).
2. Off bus ticketing or tap-in tap-out contactless, so passengers can pay/show their fare without breaking stride on boarding. The London system certainly achieves this, but provincial operators still seem uninterested.
3. On routes where there is boarding and alighting traffic at a reasonable number of stops, two sets of doors.
4. Consideration of moving to articulated rather than double deck operation - double decks will dwell longer because some people can't/won't start moving downstairs until the bus has stopped.
5. Active control (a few ideas outlined in other posts) rather than "they're all out, there'll be one along eventually".

Everyone will be unsurprised at this statement: bunching is endemic in UK provincial style operation, but is much less common in London (but still happens), and quite rare in Germany where all these mitigations tend to be used well.

You forgot the most important, and something even the fabled TfL struggles with...

Reviewing the timetable on a regular basis and making appropriate adjustments every few months.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The traffic commissioner would do better to ‘take a dim view’ of operators who fail to do anything to regulate their service instead of those who actively try and provide a service over the whole route instead of letting buses bunch up with massive gaps going the other way.

I suspect this is because if you're doing it all the time then you've clearly got a faulty timetable, and that shouldn't be tolerated. Just using Excel to repeat the exact same times* every hour, much as it looks neat, won't work other than on the most rural services.

* Often looking like it was based on the office junior ragging round the route once at 2 in the afternoon in his souped up Saxo.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2023 ==

You forgot the most important, and something even the fabled TfL struggles with...

Reviewing the timetable on a regular basis and making appropriate adjustments every few months.

Totally agree, I almost took that as given!

 

[markymark2000]

It may be better to make the bus priority conditional on whether the bus is running late. This provides a means of recovering delays, so schedules may be slower on average but are more predictable. v

Liverpool apparently has this on the 10a corridor. Don't think anyone knows how effective it is.



As for reducing bus bunching, it's hard to do as whatever you do, you will upset someone. I'd say that as much of the trip as possible, should run but that needs to be weighed up against cancelling the trip. My local depot staff can't be bothered with the paperwork of cancelling a trip or speaking to drivers who have long breaks so even if a bus is 20 late, they will keep it running and let 2 buses follow eachother. They say because of the 8 minute layover, you'll catch up. Ignoring the fact missing buses mean more passengers so slower trips.

For circulars, I'd cut one trip and that then saves all the delay. For end to end routes, I'd see if there is potential for a bus to skip an area, such as a few suburbs or villages and catch up time but still keep passengers onboard for the longer distance. For example, the 1/X1 in Liverpool. Going up to Liverpool, both routes go the same way so if one bus is 15 late, put anyone for Birkenhead on the on-time bus and let the late one take everyone going straight to Liverpool. That would save a good 10 minutes. Longer distance passengers aren't as inconvenienced.

I say this because its one of my pet hates. Buses running dead to catch up time on the route, they should instead take passengers and advise they aren't serving certain areas. Then those who are going further than the 'fast' area can get there without having to sit and wait for the next bus.

I think Stagecoach Cheltenham did it. Ran 94s to the other end empty rather than running them as a 94X (bearing in mind during the Commonwealth games, both routes were just as bad) and then passengers going between the towns could still go rather than running empty buses, wasting fuel and leaving passengers behind when instead, you could run a faster bus, take passengers, earn revenue, keep everyone moving and still catch up some time. It's a win win for everyone.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Liverpool apparently has this on the 10a corridor. Don't think anyone knows how effective it is.



As for reducing bus bunching, it's hard to do as whatever you do, you will upset someone. I'd say that as much of the trip as possible, should run but that needs to be weighed up against cancelling the trip. My local depot staff can't be bothered with the paperwork of cancelling a trip or speaking to drivers who have long breaks so even if a bus is 20 late, they will keep it running and let 2 buses follow eachother. They say because of the 8 minute layover, you'll catch up. Ignoring the fact missing buses mean more passengers so slower trips.

For circulars, I'd cut one trip and that then saves all the delay. For end to end routes, I'd see if there is potential for a bus to skip an area, such as a few suburbs or villages and catch up time but still keep passengers onboard for the longer distance. For example, the 1/X1 in Liverpool. Going up to Liverpool, both routes go the same way so if one bus is 15 late, put anyone for Birkenhead on the on-time bus and let the late one take everyone going straight to Liverpool. That would save a good 10 minutes. Longer distance passengers aren't as inconvenienced.

I say this because its one of my pet hates. Buses running dead to catch up time on the route, they should instead take passengers and advise they aren't serving certain areas. Then those who are going further than the 'fast' area can get there without having to sit and wait for the next bus.

I think Stagecoach Cheltenham did it. Ran 94s to the other end empty rather than running them as a 94X (bearing in mind during the Commonwealth games, both routes were just as bad) and then passengers going between the towns could still go rather than running empty buses, wasting fuel and leaving passengers behind when instead, you could run a faster bus, take passengers, earn revenue, keep everyone moving and still catch up some time. It's a win win for everyone.

Running a bus fast for part of its route. Advantages are it siphons of some of the passengers that could otherwise slow down a following bus. Disadvantages are it can take a lot of time sorting out passengers who need to to be got off (worse still if some refuse) and is seen as favouritism towards some destinations.

Turning back early has the advantage that it is usually done when the following bus is close behind. No sorting/managing of passengers for different stops and no-one sees it as so badly unfair (the bus is now going in the wrong direction).

I think doing nothing is so defeatist on routs with a high frequency. It really highlights to passengers and foot soldiers (staff on the front line who deal with "customers") that those in control really does not care (or appear stupid). The reality is, the more frequent the service, the more bunching is likely to happen and its how that result of the problem is dealt with that counts. Doing nothing means eventually all busses will end up bunched together if what is left of the day is long enough !.

OK I am seeing this from a London perspective.

 

[markymark2000]

Running a bus fast for part of its route. Advantages are it siphons of some of the passengers that could otherwise slow down a following bus. Disadvantages are it can take a lot of time sorting out passengers who need to to be got off (worse still if some refuse) and is seen as favouritism towards some destinations.

Depends on the passenger loads. From the London perspective, I think that you'd be there a while sorting passengers. In many areas though, it could be done much easily and only take a minute or two.

Turning back early has the advantage that it is usually done when the following bus is close behind. No sorting/managing of passengers for different stops and no-one sees it as so badly unfair (the bus is now going in the wrong direction).

But if a bus route is A-B-C-B-A every 15 minutes. The bus does A-B then gets turned around. Anyone travelling B-C gets the bus behind with minimal delay as they wouldn't get to C any quicker on either bus. Anyone boarding between C-B though will be at least 15 minutes delayed. Maybe more by the time the bus behind get there with the extra passengers.

Any bus turning early should be at a major stop, not a random bus stop.

I think doing nothing is so defeatist on routs with a high frequency. It really highlights to passengers and foot soldiers (staff on the front line who deal with "customers") that those in control really does not care (or appear stupid). The reality is, the more frequent the service, the more bunching is likely to happen and its how that result of the problem is dealt with that counts. Doing nothing means eventually all busses will end up bunched together if what is left of the day is long enough !.

OK I am seeing this from a London perspective.

You've got to do something about bus bunching but I think each route needs its own way of doing it. Some routes need faster running, some need early turnarounds, some need a trip cancelling and so a bus runs on-time from the next trip. There is no single way to do it. Of course you've got to take into account passenger flows and driver changeovers and in some cases, early turnaround would inconvenience a lot of people and mean that driver changeovers can't happen in the right places.

 

[WAB]

You forgot the most important, and something even the fabled TfL struggles with...

Reviewing the timetable on a regular basis and making appropriate adjustments every few months.

Yes, I know of a route which had the minimum 3 minute turnaround at either end and had many schools and approaches to the North Circular on its route. Net result, 40 minute gaps in a 10min-headway service as regular as clockwork. It was eventually fixed by adding another bus to the route, and having 10 minute stand times.

For less predictable delays, your choices are:

1. Padded running time (slows down all journeys and makes the bus service less attractive, and requires extra vehicles and staff)
2. Longer stand times (depends on stand capacity, and requires extra vehicles and staff)
3. Turning short (only affects passengers when it is actually needed, does not require additional vehicles/staff)
4. Running light (only really helps if there are significant dwell times)
5. Running direct (only really helps if there are significant dwell times and there are significant shortcuts to the terminus available)

You need a combination based on local needs, but I favour 2 and 3.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2023 ==

I think doing nothing is so defeatist on routs with a high frequency. It really highlights to passengers and foot soldiers (staff on the front line who deal with "customers") that those in control really does not care (or appear stupid). The reality is, the more frequent the service, the more bunching is likely to happen and its how that result of the problem is dealt with that counts. Doing nothing means eventually all busses will end up bunched together if what is left of the day is long enough !.

OK I am seeing this from a London perspective.

Yes, the iBus control system went down for one hour once at a depot and within a couple of hours, 9 of 11 buses on a 10-minute headway were within five minutes of each other. Doing nothing ends badly unless ample recovery time either en-route or at termini is built-in. Given the reluctance to provide extra vehicles and drivers, we will instead have to rely on intervention for the foreseeable.

 

[GusB]

Do control room staff not have an incident log on which they record the reasons for any change to a particular service? If it has been noted that, for example, service X was been truncated at point A and the driver advised to proceed directly to the terminus in order to recover the service, this should be seen as a positive action and I would hope that the traffic commissioner would take this into account when dealing with any issues.

I agree that whatever is done someone is going to be upset, but as long as the public is kept informed via the company website and social media channels, it shows that action is being taken to bring the service back into line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do control room staff not have an incident log on which they record the reasons for any change to a particular service? If it has been noted that, for example, service X was been truncated at point A and the driver advised to proceed directly to the terminus in order to recover the service, this should be seen as a positive action and I would hope that the traffic commissioner would take this into account when dealing with any issues.

I agree that whatever is done someone is going to be upset, but as long as the public is kept informed via the company website and social media channels, it shows that action is being taken to bring the service back into line.

I wonder if part of the problem is that quite a few smaller companies don't really have a "Control" to log it - drivers make their own decisions on the ground, and because they're doing so in a fairly pressured situation those decisions often aren't the right ones even if made with the best intentions.

And I'm not saying it's easy - I have had a very small amount of experience in trying to run shuttles from Piccadilly station pickup area* to a Scout event in Worsley, we had 2 Transits and a Vito, I was nominally controlling it but also driving one of the Transits so only able to do anything about it when I wasn't on the move, and we still managed somehow to end up with all three vehicles at Piccadilly at once despite lots of effort not to including a nominal timetable!

* Probably couldn't do it now, I expect it has camera-based parking restrictions that would prevent us coming back repeatedly unless a registered taxi.

 

[M803UYA]

Do control room staff not have an incident log on which they record the reasons for any change to a particular service? If it has been noted that, for example, service X was been truncated at point A and the driver advised to proceed directly to the terminus in order to recover the service, this should be seen as a positive action and I would hope that the traffic commissioner would take this into account when dealing with any issues.

I agree that whatever is done someone is going to be upset, but as long as the public is kept informed via the company website and social media channels, it shows that action is being taken to bring the service back into line.

Yes they do. It's a part of EP Morris scheduling software and it will generate a report for 'lost mileage'. In Stagecoach it was a measured indicator of depot performance and brought up in monthly management meetings with directors of the operating company. So a depot controller 'pulling' a trip needs a reason to go with it. If lost mileage at a depot is high, questions will be asked as to why this is.

Unsure how Ticketer would handle this, but presumably the same reporting process(es) would be in place. I'd presume most operators actually control their drivers and what they get up to operating services. Certainly there is vehicle tracking software in place to monitor where people are. If you've got a driver deviating from the registered route, that'll flag up somewhere. Most drivers do not do things off their own initiative - they're trained to refer to the 'depot'.

 

[markymark2000]

Do control room staff not have an incident log on which they record the reasons for any change to a particular service? If it has been noted that, for example, service X was been truncated at point A and the driver advised to proceed directly to the terminus in order to recover the service, this should be seen as a positive action and I would hope that the traffic commissioner would take this into account when dealing with any issues.

I agree that whatever is done someone is going to be upset, but as long as the public is kept informed via the company website and social media channels, it shows that action is being taken to bring the service back into line.

Depends on the area and company. My local depot is Stagecoach but the depot staff can't be bothered filling in the log as it looks bad that they have lost mileage. They ignore the fact that the traffic commissioner sees very late buses, they still class that as lost mileage, whether it ran or not, if very late, it's classed as not running.

 

[M803UYA]

My local depot is Stagecoach but the depot staff can't be bothered filling in the log as it looks bad that they have lost mileage.

The situation you're describing couldn't possibly be happening - as I outlined in #77 lost mileage is measured as a key performance indicator and management must account for it in monthly meetings with the directors. I can't see how one Stagecoach subsidiary operates differently to the others, given the amount of central control within the group. So it's a nationally measured performance indicator. Again, if your depot has high lost mileage that's not accounted for, the depot management won't be in place long.

Stagecoach are quite happy to relocate managers or remove them when they don't perform to budget. Excessive lost mileage is one reason for that happening.

 

[markymark2000]

The situation you're describing couldn't possibly be happening - as I outlined in #77 lost mileage is measured as a key performance indicator and management must account for it in monthly meetings with the directors. I can't see how one Stagecoach subsidiary operates differently to the others, given the amount of central control within the group. So it's a nationally measured performance indicator. Again, if your depot has high lost mileage that's not accounted for, the depot management won't be in place long.

I mean, it was the case about 2 years ago. They didn't want to measure it as lost milage so said keep running as in their eyes, it wasn't lost mileage, it still ran. Albeit rather late.

Stagecoach are quite happy to relocate managers or remove them when they don't perform to budget. Excessive lost mileage is one reason for that happening.

Not in my division. it's not what you know, it's who you know. I'd love to give some stories but they're not appropriate for this forum. To put it in short, let's say one depot manager can't do their job at all, the whole depot says it and no one likes the manages and they spend most of their time having affairs with drivers. Yet still, they are in a job 2 years later. The depot would fail if it wasn't for some of the more dedicated staff propping things up.

 

[M803UYA]

Not in my division. it's not what you know, it's who you know. I'd love to give some stories but they're not appropriate for this forum. To put it in short, let's say one depot manager can't do their job at all, the whole depot says it and no one likes the manages and they spend most of their time having affairs with drivers. Yet still, they are in a job 2 years later. The depot would fail if it wasn't for some of the more dedicated staff propping things up.

I'm pretty sure this management system is in place in all Stagecoach operating companies, given how centralised the operation is.

A company falls under a region, which has a director. Each company has a Managing Director, an Operations Director, a Commercial Director (sometimes merged with operations) and an Engineering Director. Underneath the Operations Director will be an Operations Manager (Depot Manager) and possibly some assistant managers. The same is applied to each depot on the engineering side - Engineering Managers reporting to an Engineering Director. Other functions outside of this are handled centrally.

Each depot in the company has their performance reviewed on a monthly basis for the previous period. It is at those meetings, with the directors of the company that the management of the depot reviews what has happened. I'll give you an example relevant to the title of this thread.

We had a service change requiring introduction of 15 new buses and a revised timetable. Coupled to this was a new ticket machine system (ERG TP5000 machines replacing older) and sets of temporary roadworks. Let's just say the timetable might not have been properly planned due to the commercial director's attention not fully being attentive in work and there were issues maintaining the timetable. That resulted in a lot of lost mileage. Funnily enough the issue was worse during the school holidays instead of the school terms. It was the practice of one depot controller to 'pull' buses from the timetable whenever they operated late. Several drivers were persistent late runners, and so on a number of Tuesdays on a certain hour of the day, buses were coming in screened 'out of service' and then driving past the waiting passengers to go out to the starting point of the journey close to the depot.

Suffice to say this was a control measure intended to address late running. It was done in a such a way as to upset a number of passengers, who complained. Complaints, like lost mileage are a measured key performance indicator. Something that'll be discussed during the depot review meeting with the directors. 'Why do you have a higher level of complaints etc'. The depot management traced the pulling of trips by a controller pretty quickly by going through who was on duty on the days in question. Said individual found himself out of work not long after as the depot management picked up the issue.

Stagecoach is highly profitable because it has few tiers of management. It's judged as an unnecessary cost within the business. So what you're describing has to be known about in the head office as there are few tiers of management within the company. If it's known in head office the regional director will also know, as will the people in charge of UK Bus.

And whilst local management teams, and directors of operating companies do have autonomy, they won't have a free pass to lose mileage, someone will have to justify it and be accountable for it. Stagecoach aren't often up before the traffic commissioners for failing to run timetables (though it tends to be headline news when they are!). Stagecoach didn't get where they were by being nice to people - they remain highly driven people whose sole aim is to make money. And making money is something they've been very good at. You don't make money by failing to provide timetabled services.

 

[Bus Lightyear]

Only answer I could give to this topic is take buses off the road and build more tram networks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only answer I could give to this topic is take buses off the road and build more tram networks.

The physical type of vehicle has basically nothing to do with it at all, trams would bunch if they had one entry door and you paid the driver (see Amsterdam in the 2000s, or Blackpool's old one-man-operated trams). The answer however basically lies in "operate your buses like trams" - that is, decouple dwells from the number boarding (fast or off bus ticketing and lots of doors) and use dedicated infrastructure to avoid traffic congestion. Bunching is basically caused by the fact that if a bus gets delayed it picks up more passengers and so gets later and later until the one behind catches it up.

 

[RT4038]

Do control room staff not have an incident log on which they record the reasons for any change to a particular service? If it has been noted that, for example, service X was been truncated at point A and the driver advised to proceed directly to the terminus in order to recover the service, this should be seen as a positive action and I would hope that the traffic commissioner would take this into account when dealing with any issues.

Of course. The TC would only get exercised if the short turn/run dead etc was happening on a regular basis (same trips every day etc, in which case the timetable should be adjusted), or was being done to gain a competitive advantage (on those few routes with such activity). If it is being caused by random incidents outside of the operators' reasonable control, as long as 'Control' are logging the reasons, then adjustments to restore punctuality are just fine.

 

[Peter Sarf]

..........................


But if a bus route is A-B-C-B-A every 15 minutes. The bus does A-B then gets turned around. Anyone travelling B-C gets the bus behind with minimal delay as they wouldn't get to C any quicker on either bus. Anyone boarding between C-B though will be at least 15 minutes delayed. Maybe more by the time the bus behind get there with the extra passengers.

.......................

I don't think in an urban situation much is to be lost by turning the bus at B. The departure delay you refer to from C back towards B will be dictated by the time either bus will take to get from B to C. The biggest hold up will be the traffic which will not vary much if the front bus runs empty non stop or if the second bus behind runs loaded and stopping. Furthermore the rest of the route from B to A benefits and so then for the rest of the day (depending on when the next traffic problem occurs).

 

[Bus Lightyear]

The physical type of vehicle has basically nothing to do with it at all, trams would bunch if they had one entry door and you paid the driver (see Amsterdam in the 2000s, or Blackpool's old one-man-operated trams). The answer however basically lies in "operate your buses like trams" - that is, decouple dwells from the number boarding (fast or off bus ticketing and lots of doors) and use dedicated infrastructure to avoid traffic congestion. Bunching is basically caused by the fact that if a bus gets delayed it picks up more passengers and so gets later and later until the one behind catches it up.

I haven't noticed trams bunching anywhere I've been although it's over 30 years since I was last in Amsterdam or Blackpool.

The point on having one door is a valid one but in the UK outwith London, which already caters for dual door operation, it would be costly to upgrade bus stop and bus station infrastructure to accommodate dual door buses.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point on having one door is a valid one but in the UK outwith London, which already caters for dual door operation, it would be costly to upgrade bus stop and bus station infrastructure to accommodate dual door buses.

To which it simply comes down to, if you are operating "cross city" type routes with boarding and alighting simultaneously at a significant number of stops, "do you want to fix the problem or don't you?"

It seems evident to me that British provincial bus companies have no interest whatsoever in fixing it.

 

[Bus Lightyear]

It seems evident to me that British provincial bus companies have no interest whatsoever in fixing it.

That and PTES/local authorities too you could say.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That and PTES/local authorities too you could say.

Agreed, it doesn't look like TfGM or Merseytravel are particularly interested in fixing it either.

 

[edwin_m]

Agreed, it doesn't look like TfGM or Merseytravel are particularly interested in fixing it either.

They could modify the stops but they have no power to compel the operators to buy dual-door buses, so unless they got that agreed in advance it would be a waste of public money.