88/89 bus

[Talpa]

Hello, I thought some people on here might be interested to see this page about the sometimes unreliable 88/89 north Manchester bus: http://www.fixmytransport.com/campaigns/improve-reliability-on-the-8889-route.

I'm part of the charity mySociety, and this is part of our latest project FixMyTransport.com. It allows people to send reports to transport operators while, at the same time, creating pages like this that others can add their support to.

If you are affected by issues with the same bus, please feel free to either add the campaign or leave a comment - or if some other bus/train issue is bugging you, this may be just the place for you. In that case, you just need to start at the homepage: http://www.fixmytransport.com.

Thanks for listening! Do let me know if anything isn't clear.

 

[bb21]

The inherent trouble (structurally) with circular routes is that they can't have a large layover built-in to cater for delays en route, unlike the conventional form of finishing at the terminus and then regulate for time. Buses on circular routes pick up passengers everywhere along the route and if people have to wait in the bus somewhere along the line for 15 minutes, I don't think that they will be very impressed if they are on a through journey. It is a bit of a pickle really. One possibility is to build in time regulations at a number of points along the line. The downside of this is for it to be effective the passengers will experience a number of delays of a few minutes along the route, under normal conditions (ie. when there is no heavy traffic nearby), which also annoys passengers. Especially for circular routes running more than just a short distance, realistically to improve punctuality, the solution is to cut it into two conventional routes terminating at the city centre and the suburbs, possibly White Moss in this case, via two different routes.

Good luck with what you're doing, however to resolve this issue of bunching, I'm afraid that more needs to be done than purely saying that reliability/punctuality needs improving on this route.

On a technicality, reliability is a measure of how many journeys are run compared to the schedule, and punctuality is a measure whether the buses run on time. I suspect that both issues are of importance here as punctuality issues can cause reliability problems.

 

[Talpa]

Thank you bb21, that is really very useful insight - I'm going to copy and paste it over on the FixMyTransport site, because I believe this may be one of those examples where, once something is explained to you, it becomes less frustrating.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hi again bb21,
I shared your response over on FixMyTransport.com and Bill wrote a long answer to you - but there, not here.

If you're interested please do look again at http://www.fixmytransport.com/campaigns/improve-reliability-on-the-8889-route - his reply is comment number 10.

Cheers!

 

[MCR247]

I haven't had chance to read the links because I'm on my phone, but while we are on about circular routes, we had two in Nottingham, but one side got busier than the other, and therefore needed more frequent buses, but by keeping them as circular routes, it meant that if you put extra buses on, only half of the time would they solve the problem of overcrowding, as the other half they were running half empty on the other half of the route. So in the end they were split


Although thinking about, I hope this doesnt end up being completely irrelevant because I haven't read the link!

 

[Talpa]

I hope this doesnt end up being completely irrelevant because I haven't read the link!

Not at all!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Hello, I thought some people on here might be interested to see this page about the sometimes unreliable 88/89 north Manchester bus: http://www.fixmytransport.com/campaigns/improve-reliability-on-the-8889-route.

The 88/89 service was given a new TfGM timetable dated 1st May 2011 to reflect that whilst First Manchester are the main operators of these bi-directional services, the evening, Sunday and Public Holiday services will be run by Jpt.

All the First Manchester services are operated as Commercial bus services by First Manchester and are not subsidised, unlike those now operated by Jpt.

On service 88, services from Manchester Piccadilly, via White Moss and Cheetham to Manchester Shudehill, between 0657 and 1757 are operated to a 10 minute timetable frequency from Mondays to Fridays.

On service 89, services from Manchester Shudehill, via Cheetham and White Moss to Manchester Piccadilly, between 0742 and 1739 are operated to a 10 minute timetable frequency from Mondays to Fridays.

Both services serve the Metrolink stations at Bowker Vale, Crumpsall, Victoria, Piccadilly Gardens and Shudehill Interchange.

 

[TAG Manchester]

Thanks Paul,

The timetable from the 1st May 11 only shows it as "and at frequent intervals of not more than 10 minutes until" between 07:47 and 13:57 Mon - Fri, and between 10:37 and 17:57 on Saturday. It also shows it runs only part route on Sunday at 30 minute intervals until 18:55 where it then alternates between full and part route. This is from the 88 half of the timetable, the 89 displays a similar pattern albeit lightly different times.(http://www.tfgm.com/upload/routemaps/88_89_28348.pdf)

The timetable information at the bus stop differs in that it has specific times listed for the whole day, it does not have the "and at frequent intervals of not more than 10 minutes until" displayed.

The revised Summer time table does not show any other change than the period it is "frequent" between, (http://www.tfgm.com/pdf/summer_timetables_2011/88_89_Summer_2011.pdf)

This does not address the reliabilty issue. It just exagerates how unreliable it is! Especially as the information passenger are relying on differs depending on what/where they are reading it.

While it should run every ten minutes it does not, at least not along the section of the route where I use it.

How is it being a commercial or subsidised service relevant? The average passenger does not care, they just want the bus to arrive at the time it is supposed to.

 

[radamfi]

Subsidised or commercial does make a slight difference in the level of enforcement of service performance. If a route is tendered then the authority can impose sanctions for poor performance or strip the company of the tender in extreme cases. By contrast, there is little that can be done for poor performance of commercial services. You are relying on traffic commissioners having sufficient evidence and their resources are spread very thin. Even if there is an inquiry, operators at best get a modest financial penalty and maybe a reduction in vehicles they are allowed to run. Only in a very extreme case would a licence be revoked (like UK North a few years ago). So the 88/89 would probably still be run by First.

Clearly bus services in most of Britain, including Manchester, operate without much bus priority so I wouldn't be surprised if the 88/89 is prone to random traffic delays, which is beyond the operator's control. If the route has a summer timetable then that would indicate that journey times are quicker in summer and there are significant traffic problems during the rest of the year.

 

[TAG Manchester]

Hi radamfi,

It does not influence reliabilty though. I am not seeking penalties or enforcement. The emphasis on this just entrenches the 'us and them' attitude between providers and policy makers (and does nothing to improve the service to passengers).

And it does nothing to address the multitude of issues that cause the situation in the first place.

Actually enforcement could play a role, if box junction infringement, inconsiderate/illegal parking and other traffic violations were enforced it could address some of the problems that impact on the runnings.

Reliable, safe and effective public transport is not an important enough priority though.

 

[radamfi]

In London, where all routes operate on a gross cost tender basis, operators are paid a set amount to run the route and then get a bonus depending on whether they meet certain quality indicators, including punctuality. There are regular surveys measuring the 'excess waiting time' on frequent routes. They even have league tables of punctuality. These will be enhanced soon to use GPS tracking which all London buses now have so they can't just perform well on survey days to get their bonus.

If you want this in Manchester then lobby TfGM to introduce similar route franchising.

None of GM's operators as far as I know offer real time information and I'm not even sure they GPS track their own vehicles, which could help regulate the service better. Operators like Metrobus and Brighton & Hove track their entire network and offer real time information to the general public.

 

[Greenback]

I can't speak for th particular bus service, but mpst operators employ high levels of stock utilisation, which means that any delay has a knock on effect. In this area, punctuality is very poor, the local bus is at least ten minutes late every time I have used it. The timetable was recast, supposedly to improve matters, but it had little, if any effect.

Delays here can be caused for many reasons. It's common for buses to be held up by delivery vans blocking the street - courier firms seem particularly guilty of this. It may only take five minutes to rush into the building, drop the parcel off and get a signature, but it makes a big difference on what could be a very tight schedule in the first place.

Then there are the delays caused by traffic and roadworks. Then the time taken to get buggies on board. Before you know it the bus is ten minutes late, and being caught up by the one behind if it's a frequent service. That one doesn't pick up any passengers, as they've all got on the first one, meaning that eventually they are running together.

Even on infrequent services the bus is behind time when it gets to the destination, meaning the return service is late, and gets later still due to traffic/road works/obstructions all over again!

I don't see any solution for this. Buses have had problems with timekeeping for the last forty years and more.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Subsidised or commercial does make a slight difference in the level of enforcement of service performance. If a route is tendered then the authority can impose sanctions for poor performance or strip the company of the tender in extreme cases. By contrast, there is little that can be done for poor performance of commercial services. You are relying on traffic commissioners having sufficient evidence and their resources are spread very thin. Even if there is an inquiry, operators at best get a modest financial penalty and maybe a reduction in vehicles they are allowed to run. Only in a very extreme case would a licence be revoked (like UK North a few years ago). So the 88/89 would probably still be run by First.

Thank you for your extra input on this matter. When I made my posting in which I stated the commercial and tendered parts of the service, I appear to have made the assumption that forum members would have known the inherant differences of these two scenarios and as such, did not feel the need to explain the differences, which you have done so well.

 

[TAG Manchester]

Thank you for your extra input on this matter. When I made my posting in which I stated the commercial and tendered parts of the service, I appear to have made the assumption that forum members would have known the inherant differences of these two scenarios and as such, did not feel the need to explain the differences, which you have done so well.

The difference was known. However, I still do not know how the way the bus is run (funded) will/could influence how it will be affected by delays that will impact on its reliability.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Delays here can be caused for many reasons. <snip>

I don't see any solution for this. Buses have had problems with timekeeping for the last forty years and more.

Thanks for your input.

I would say more than Forty years, and the have continually increased.

The cause of delay are pretty well known, yet are/have been continually ignored/overlooked.

The example of the delivery van is a good one. (any) Double parking for a 'quick nip' into a shop/office etc. is not recognised for the knock on effect it has, not just to buses. As a result it is not penalised (which would reduce incidents), despite its illegality.

The costs saved by reducing the role and number of traffic enforcers have just transferred to problems (and cost) elswhere.

No joined up thinking.

 

[Greenback]

I can only remember the last forty years, but I'm sure it has been longer than that!

There is no joined up thinking in the UK for many things. There are too many organisations involved, each with their own agenda and interests. Outside of the PTE's it's even worse public transport wise. For example, there is not enough integration between rail and bus (except for ticketing - PlusBus is great!).

 

[TAG Manchester]

In London <snip>

Ah London, where the buses were privatised but never de-regulated (and still make profit)

If you want this in Manchester then lobby TfGM to introduce similar route franchising.

I have lost count the number of times I have suggested Quality Contracts as a solution to some of Manchesters bus woes. Not political will to do so.

None of GM's operators as far as I know offer real time information and I'm not even sure they GPS track their own vehicles, which could help regulate the service better. Operators like Metrobus and Brighton & Hove track their entire network and offer real time information to the general public.

You are right. Real time information is part of the solution. While it will not reduce the causes of, or the delays, knowing the bus is ## minutes away will restore some confidence (at least we know where it is) and help people decide when to go to the stop, as long as it is available away from the stop that is.

Again this is another thing I have lost count of the number of times I have aired this as a benefit to increasing confidence in/usage of the buses in Manchester.

This raises another issue though. I have sat at tables where operators and transport authority have squabbled over who should pay for the technology, each expecting the other to stump up the cash!

I know that utilising real time information and mobile phone technology is in Manchesters Local Sustainable Trandport bid, lets hope they get it. It will make a differnce to those with smart phones, which is a start.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can only remember the last forty years, but I'm sure it has been longer than that!

There is no joined up thinking in the UK for many things. There are too many organisations involved, each with their own agenda and interests. Outside of the PTE's it's even worse public transport wise. For example, there is not enough integration between rail and bus (except for ticketing - PlusBus is great!).

I cant help but marvel at what a great idea it was to make discusing timetables and fares between operators illegal

 

[radamfi]

Let's face it, you don't come to Britain for its local public transport! If you want that, go to Switzerland, Netherlands or Germany.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah London, where the buses were privatised but never de-regulated (and still make profit)

London's buses broke even in the late 90s but massive investment under Ken means subsidy now runs at 100s of millions of pounds, which the PTEs are highly jealous of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have lost count the number of times I have suggested Quality Contracts as a solution to some of Manchesters bus woes. Not political will to do so.

Out of all the PTEs, TfGM and West Midlands PTEs are the least interested in Quality Contracts. WM and GM are almost the same population but WM has considerably higher patronage and considerably lower fares. There are good relations between WMPTE and the main operator, National Express West Midlands.

A lot of people in GM want QCs, notably the MP Graham Stringer, but until recently TfGM have preferred partnership working. TfGM has its hands full at the moment with the Metrolink construction so I wouldn't expect much to happen on buses for at least 5 years. They are also probably wanting to see how QCs plans in West Yorkshire pan out.

 

[bb21]

Hi, sorry about the delay in responding. I haven't had much time on here recently so haven't been patrolling some forums as often.

Ah London, where the buses were privatised but never de-regulated (and still make profit)

As radamfi has pointed out, they don't really. Each year millions get poured into the system in London and council tax payers there also subsidise the network in part. Yes they have an integrated network where the fares are reasonable, however London is not the only example. The much maligned First Mainline subsidiary in South Yorkshire still charges a reasonable fare compared to many other cities in the country, amongst others.

I have lost count the number of times I have suggested Quality Contracts as a solution to some of Manchesters bus woes. Not political will to do so.

It is not as simple though. Though a possible solution to the defragmented bus industry in urban areas, there are many issues, mainly about money, that will need to be addressed for such a scheme to go ahead, such as how the principle operators are going to be compensated if they don't get awarded the contract for the corridors that they current operate on, especially if it is a highly profitable one, such as the Wilmslow Road corridor.

You are right. Real time information is part of the solution. While it will not reduce the causes of, or the delays, knowing the bus is ## minutes away will restore some confidence (at least we know where it is) and help people decide when to go to the stop, as long as it is available away from the stop that is.

I agree. However what we really need here is a more centrally administered scheme for it to be effective. At the moment, there is no economies of scale and the technology is not cheap. Also each local authority does its own thing and there appears to be little communication amongst different clusters of authorities. To give you an example, Leicestershire has one of the earliest models of realtime display technology in Startrak. Nevertheless after main operator Arriva Midlands pulled out of the scheme at the beginning of this year, it was deemed too costly to maintain and therefore switched off. Another reason cited is that the system is now not compatible with latest technology and needs a complete overhaul. Had it been planned by the central government then the system would have been more effective, with longevity and cheaper, at least in theory, as all areas have the same system. It can then become a standard requirement before awarding a company with its Passenger Service Operator's Licence.

This raises another issue though. I have sat at tables where operators and transport authority have squabbled over who should pay for the technology, each expecting the other to stump up the cash!

Unfortunately the operators are there to make money for their shareholders. The perils of privitisation, eh?

I cant help but marvel at what a great idea it was to make discusing timetables and fares between operators illegal

You can never stop it. A cartel is very difficult to prove in most circumstances.

Out of all the PTEs, TfGM and West Midlands PTEs are the least interested in Quality Contracts. WM and GM are almost the same population but WM has considerably higher patronage and considerably lower fares. There are good relations between WMPTE and the main operator, National Express West Midlands.

I don't really think QC is ever going to get the go-ahead. SYPTE seems to be the authority shouting loudest about wanting compulsory QCs after its relationship with First Mainline deteriorated a few years ago. We are still waiting.

I will read the link in detail later today and see if there is anything else I need to say about the matter. However at first glance I do agree with many of the points Bill raised and I think he has hit the nail on the head on the whole.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I can come back on this thread to say that TfGM have now issued a new timetable for this route, dated 4th September 2011, which incorporate all the amendments.

 

[TAG Manchester]

However what we really need here is a more centrally administered scheme for it to be effective. At the moment, there is no economies of scale and the technology is not cheap. Also each local authority does its own thing and there appears to be little communication amongst different clusters of authorities. <snip> It can then become a standard requirement before awarding a company with its Passenger Service Operator's Licence.

Thanks to all for your interest/comments on this topic.

I like the idea of a national RTI system. Perhaps one that crosses/links modes and geographic boundaries where appropriate.

As I have already mentioned while not directly addressing reliability this will make planning/knowing when to start a journey easier.

The side effect of having real time data collected and available/used for traffic planning, rather than and computer generated scenarios would highlight the problem areas soon enough. A knock on effect of which would be improved reliability.

Do any of you know if anything along these lines is being examined?

 

[krisk]

First are about as unreliable as you can get, our 82/83 and 180/184 service is a turn up and go service yet its more turn up and hope.

We do not need a bus every 5 minutes but I would like to see that at the time it says it should be there it will be, well that matters more. I'd rather have less but they turn up hen it says than to have loads of buses but they turn up whenever.

The key issues on the Oldham Road corridor are :

1. The roadworks in Oldham to bring Metrolink in are having a massive effect on congestion, more so than First imagined

2. There is not enough turnround time in Manchester city centre for services that are delayed

3. I'd rather have a lower frequency but a better reliability.

4. More buses between 7pm and 8.30pm from Manchester city centre - it's when shops close and shoppers and staff need to get home

5. On a Sunday night the 21.40 bus doesnt turn up, the 21.50 does but where does this missing bus go and what about the people who need that service, do they wait till 22.10?

I'd love to give the boss of First Manchester a weekly ticket and a bundle of timetables and send them out to see what their customers are expected to put up with.

I really really hope that JPT decide to run some Manchester to Oldham services, we really do need an option on this route!

 

[TAG Manchester]

4. More buses between 7pm and 8.30pm from Manchester city centre - it's when shops close and shoppers and staff need to get home

All valid points, I singled out this one as it highlights one of the more unfathonable elements of bus service provision in Manchester.

The 8pm extension to shopping hours every evening has not been matched my increased service provision any where, despite it happening 5 or more years ago. Sunday opening, and the centralisation of most leisure/social pursuits have also not been matched by increased provision.

The switch from the high frequency (but unreliable) service happens between 6 & 7pm. The 88/89 goes from (being timetabled as) every 10 minutes to a bizarre mix of full and part route between two operators.
(And one half of the route not served at all Sunday daytime)

Yet during the day there are buses running almost empty at times as the demand is reduced.

This strikes me as a waste of resources, and does nothing to encourage more bus use, especially to socialise in the evening (drink and drive anyone?)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I know that a thread can sometimes "wander", but this was originally about the North Manchester 88/89 bus service.......matters seem to have really progressed somewhat "off thread".

Back on thread, looking at the new timetable dated 4th September 2011, there is now evening provision by Jpt shown in the timetable after 1900 from Monday to Saturday and Jpt are now running the Sunday and Bank Holiday services. First Manchester provide the main body of the services.

During the main parts of the day, these bi-directional services give a route that links Manchester city centre to Cheetham, Cheetham Hill, Crumpsall, Heaton Park, Higher Blackley, White Moss, New Moston, Newton Heath, Monsall, Collyhurst and Miles Platting on a circular route.

 

[TAG Manchester]

I know that a thread can sometimes "wander", but this was originally about the North Manchester 88/89 bus service.......matters seem to have really progressed somewhat "off thread".

Back on thread, looking at the new timetable dated 4th September 2011, there is now evening provision by Jpt shown in the timetable after 1900 from Monday to Saturday and Jpt are now running the Sunday and Bank Holiday services. First Manchester provide the main body of the services.

During the main parts of the day, these bi-directional services give a route that links Manchester city centre to Cheetham, Cheetham Hill, Crumpsall, Heaton Park, Higher Blackley, White Moss, New Moston, Newton Heath, Monsall, Collyhurst and Miles Platting on a circular route.

As the topic was about improving the reliability I dont think it had gone off at all, however if converstaion/dialogue must adhere...

This "new" timetable is just the regularly adjusted post summer hols one.

The only real change are:
It used to be Bluebird in the evening/Sundays/Bank hols (that changed in May)

While it used to alternate between full route and half route half hourly in the evening the 88 has now lost 3 of the half route runnings (from the city centre) and gained one full route running, while the 89 retains the half hourly mix and does not get the additional full route?!
(as this route is 14.5 miles long getting the opposite running bus to get you home because the one running the shorter way is not available is a pain (and more expensive).

On Sundays it only runs half route in the day time, only linking up the full route in the evening.
(When Bluebird ran it with First, half each on a Sunday, at least both halves were served (albeit one was timetabled to leave 5 minutes before the other was due to arrive at the joining point).

It does not serve Heaton Park or New Moston (never has) these are on the timetable map just to indicate the geography, both are about a mile away from the closest point on the route.

Now if this "new" timetable was aimed it improving reliabilty, the question is Who for? The mismatch between clockwise / anti-clockwise runnings does not improve things for the passenger!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

On Sundays it only runs half route in the day time, only linking up the full route in the evening. When Bluebird ran it with First, half each on a Sunday, at least both halves were served (albeit one was timetabled to leave 5 minutes before the other was due to arrive at the joining point).

Now if this "new" timetable was aimed it improving reliability, the question is Who for? The mismatch between clockwise / anti-clockwise runnings does not improve things for the passenger!

I will try to answer these points, one by one:-

1)...The Sunday evening full route service is in response to the demand requested by passengers.

2)...You have answered your own question by admitting that one was timetabled to leave five minutes before the other one was due to arrive.
Can you imagine the outcry on this forum if this occurred with local rail services.

3)...Who has made any claim that this new timetable was aimed at improving reliability? All it is, is a reflection on the current situation with a change of the second named operator, with Jpt taking over the tendered services from Bluebird.

4)...The timetable cover note states that the service 88 early morning journeys have been changed on Mondays to Saturdays, with some additional journeys introduced.

I would suggest that you obtain a copy of this new timetable, which shows which services are commercially run and those that are tendered services, that have to confirm to the specification laid down in the tender.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The roadworks in Oldham to bring Metrolink in are having a massive effect on congestion, more so than First imagined.

This cannot be blamed on First as this is nothing whatsoever to do with them. They suffer as much as any other road user from the works connected with the Oldham/Rochdale new Metrolink line. You should address any comments that you have upon this matter to the Metrolink section within the offices of TfGM.

 

[TAG Manchester]

I will try to answer these points, one by one:-

1)...The Sunday evening full route service is in response to the demand requested by passengers.

I suspect it is more about the difficulty finding staff to work these times, or the additional expense incurred paying them (that would slighty reduce profit margins). As there is no mechanism for passenger to demand, or even request service changes (past from pillar to post as elected members/officer and operators both claim the other is responsible)

2)...You have answered your own question by admitting that one was timetabled to leave five minutes before the other one was due to arrive.
Can you imagine the outcry on this forum if this occurred with local rail services.

I do not recall asking a question here! And my "admission" was nothing of the sort, I was simply stating the situation as it was.

I can not imagine what the outcry here would be like if two seperate services were not better scheduled time wise (perhaps due to being run by seperate operators, who were forbidden from collaborating around timetabling), and who perhaps did not really want to be doing it in the first place. Please enlighten me.

3)...Who has made any claim that this new timetable was aimed at improving reliability? All it is, is a reflection on the current situation with a change of the second named operator, with Jpt taking over the tendered services from Bluebird.

You suggested the thread had wandered and wanted it back on track, as the thread was on reliability, and you posted information about the "new timtable"...

4)...The timetable cover note states that the service 88 early morning journeys have been changed on Mondays to Saturdays, with some additional journeys introduced.

Yes I spotted that as well, fail to see how it is relevant to this thread though?

I would suggest that you obtain a copy of this new timetable, which shows which services are commercially run and those that are tendered services, that have to confirm to the specification laid down in the tender.

Has the fact that I have highlighted elements of it not proof enough that I have a copy? will this do: http://www.tfgm.com/upload/routemaps/88_89_28496.pdf

I (still) fail to see how knowing when/whether a service is tendered or run comercially makes a difference to its reliability, or how it is relevant to this thread.

May I politely request if all you are going to do is post the timetable info, and keep referencing the commercial/subsidised aspect, instead of discussing/contributing to the topic, which is improving reliability (you seem obsessed with blame). That you refrain from posting in this thread.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

May I politely request if all you are going to do is post the timetable info, and keep referencing the commercial/subsidised aspect, instead of discussing/contributing to the topic, which is improving reliability (you seem obsessed with blame). That you refrain from posting in this thread.

As said by the Genie of the Lamp.....your wish is my command :roll:

My final comment being to ask you what method you intend to take to improve reliability? What authority can you bring to bear upon the the bus operator concerned that will achieve this?

You may not like the fact that I have quoted from the timetable, but the timetable is the published tool, issued by TfGM, that the public use to obtain required service information.....nothing more...nothing less.

 

[TAG Manchester]

My final comment being to ask you what method you intend to take to improve reliability? What authority can you bring to bear upon the the bus operator concerned that will achieve this?

This method. Opening and promoting discussion, raising the topic for debate.

Pass the ideas and suggestions on through consultation responses.

Try to reddress the extremely poor image the bus has, and highlight its potential as a vialble mass transit solution in our towns and cities.

Point out that doing what has always been done results in getting what has always been got.

I am under no illusion as to my 'authority' (interesting choice of word). I do have a choice though: grin and bear it in silence, or grin and try and change it.

 

[Deerfold]

All valid points, I singled out this one as it highlights one of the more unfathonable elements of bus service provision in Manchester.

The 8pm extension to shopping hours every evening has not been matched my increased service provision any where, despite it happening 5 or more years ago. Sunday opening, and the centralisation of most leisure/social pursuits have also not been matched by increased provision.

The switch from the high frequency (but unreliable) service happens between 6 & 7pm. The 88/89 goes from (being timetabled as) every 10 minutes to a bizarre mix of full and part route between two operators.
(And one half of the route not served at all Sunday daytime)

This does sem to highlight differences between different areas. I note that in many areas Sunday services are mostly unchanged whilst in (say) Nottingham many services are now much better on Sunday (daytime at least) - the indigo and 36 run 9bph and 6bph between Beeston and Nottingham at least. I seem to recall the equivalents 15 years ago being 1.3bph and 2 bph. In London many Sunday daytime frequencies are not much below the weekday ones.

I tend to find it annoying that there's very little provision for long distance commuting - in Halifax, for example, the (often far less frequent) evening service is in place by 1800 on most routes - a time when many people are still on their way home from work (from say Leeds - the train service doesn't start to wind down until after 1930. A typical commuter on the 1723 from Leeds gets to Halifax at 1759 and finds a skeleton bus service running).