Do customers take services for granted?

[AlbertBeale]

The problem with Glasgow is that because of the number of people there's going to be far too many conflicting views. There would need to be some sort of panel you could contact with what you need and even at that it'll only be the most common suggestions that get used

Catering for different preferences needn't be a zero-sum game - decision-making can be more consensual and co-operative than that. At least it can with goodwill and a public service ethos.

 

[PaulMc7]

Catering for different preferences needn't be a zero-sum game - decision-making can be more consensual and co-operative than that. At least it can with goodwill and a public service ethos.

I think Stagecoach do their public consultations quite well and Mcgills have attempted it. First do it in some areas occasionally so I reckon they could try it here. Large areas like East Kilbride would be interesting because you could easily have 1000s of conflicting interests to cater to

 

[AlbertBeale]

I think Stagecoach do their public consultations quite well and Mcgills have attempted it. First do it in some areas occasionally so I reckon they could try it here. Large areas like East Kilbride would be interesting because you could easily have 1000s of conflicting interests to cater to

Consultations are one thing; democratic control is another.

 

[PaulMc7]

Consultations are one thing; democratic control is another.

Yeah 100%. Even if First were more open with how they come to certain decisions I feel people would be a bit more understanding

 

[cnjb8]

Aye, that sounds about right ... and they will be "outraged" by the "scandalous " cut of the off peak service ..... that they aren't using

I have another Nottingham tale (I know sorry!) about the 18 to Stapleford before TB withdrew a year ago. The day after they announced this, CT4N said they'd take the route on. There was outrage about TB withdrawing before the CT4N announcement which I agreed with (I do believe what you say about people not using the service and getting angry about the cut) but there were photos of little TB Solo SRs teeming with people before the cut. People were obviously relieved about CT4N. When they took over they ran Tempos full to the brim, now its Solos again carrying air!
Sorry for the essay, the story just linked!

 

[PaulMc7]

I have another Nottingham tale (I know sorry!) about the 18 to Stapleford before TB withdrew a year ago. The day after they announced this, CT4N said they'd take the route on. There was outrage which I agreed with (I do believe what you say about people not using the service and getting angry about the cut) but there were photos of little TB Solo SRs teeming with people. People were obviously relieved about CT4N. When they took over they ran Tempos full to the brim, now its Solos again carrying air!
Sorry for the essay, the story just linked!

Yeah that's completely fine. Always good to read plenty of stories from other people to get a grasp of other locations. People seem to want something one minute then not want it the next. I do feel sorry for bus companies because it's impossible to cater to everyone

 

[cnjb8]

Yeah that's completely fine. Always good to read plenty of stories from other people to get a grasp of other locations. People seem to want something one minute then not want it the next. I do feel sorry for bus companies because it's impossible to cater to everyone

Thanks!
There is a few more examples in Nottingham as CT4N are on the up.

 

[ClydeCoaster]

I find the idea that public money should be spent on something that no one uses a difficult one to swallow. A public bus company needs to make a profit, otherwise it cannot invest in wages, depot facilities, new stock without literally draining the public purse. Granted the argument about whether that profit should go to shareholders is a different thing entirely but a lot of the cuts particularly down south are where the funding is simply no longer sustainable on a subsidised service.

But as for people taking a bus service for granted, yes absolutely they do. Here in North Ayrshire Shuttle Buses have withdrawn their local service in the village of Dalry - remarkably it was a commercial service in a small village, linking two housing schemes with the village centre every half hour. The local press are all over it, the local councillor has set up a petition, and one party group on the council has used it to again call for North Ayrshire Council to start their own services. However, SPT aren’t taking over running of it on a subsidised service because there’s an hourly Stagecoach service that duplicates the route in its entirety... The withdrawal of it is simply being used as a rock to throw at the private bus company.

The same party group called for North Ayrshire to take over the Stagecoach 11 service from Ardrossan to Kilmarnock because it reduced from every 7 minutes to every 10. When A1 Service operated it from 1931 to 1995 it was always every 10 minutes, it increased after First withdrew in 2006 but reducing the frequency to 10 minutes with high spec double deckers replaced every 7 years is enough to cause a political shouting match...

 

[Eyersey468]

When EYMS withdrew the X4 the last day it ran the bus was full, it was as though people were coming out and saying look we are using it, but it was too little too late.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So few people actually have a grasp of business and financial costs

I have a grasp of "business" and think public transport shouldn't be subject to them in the same way.

Many routes are reduced or binned entirely because the operator doesn't make *enough* profit, not because they make a loss. Certainly under Lockhead there was an attitude in First where if the margin was below a certain value a route/depot would be binned, even if it was paying itself.

You only have to look to Calderdale to see this. First chipped away at the edges and now Yorkshire Tiger have a strong foothold making money on routes First abandoned. See also Arriva in the Durham Coalfield, retracting and cutting and now Go are dominant in their backyard.

If a service is washing its face then it should stay, but managers in the big companies don't always see it that way.

 

[PaulMc7]

I have a grasp of "business" and think public transport shouldn't be subject to them in the same way.

Many routes are reduced or binned entirely because the operator doesn't make *enough* profit, not because they make a loss. Certainly under Lockhead there was an attitude in First where if the margin was below a certain value a route/depot would be binned, even if it was paying itself.

You only have to look to Calderdale to see this. First chipped away at the edges and now Yorkshire Tiger have a strong foothold making money on routes First abandoned. See also Arriva in the Durham Coalfield, retracting and cutting and now Go are dominant in their backyard.

If a service is washing its face then it should stay, but managers in the big companies don't always see it that way.

The chances are that if services don't make enough profit then it could affect others who were potentially the same. I think things like bringing in new buses and boosting other services are affected by small profit makers so if you keep all of the small profit makers that just cause a problem of its own

 

[Tetchytyke]

The chances are that if services don't make enough profit then it could affect others who were potentially the same. I think things like bringing in new buses and boosting other services are affected by small profit makers so if you keep all of the small profit makers that just cause a problem of its own

If a bus route is washing its face I'm confused how that is a problem?

Arriva County Durham is an example of how it goes wrong. They had the hold on the Durham coalfield but the profit margins weren't high enough for targets from head office. So they retrenched, with an independent (Jayline) taking over. Jayline was very successful and so Go North East now own it, and have used it as a basis for expansion. Arriva have been shoved out of east Durham because they got sniffy about single digit margins. To an extent the same thing has happened in Calderdale with First and Centrebus/Yorkshire Tiger.

 

[PaulMc7]

If a bus route is washing its face I'm confused how that is a problem?

Arriva County Durham is an example of how it goes wrong. They had the hold on the Durham coalfield but the profit margins weren't high enough for targets from head office. So they retrenched, with an independent (Jayline) taking over. Jayline was very successful and so Go North East now own it, and have used it as a basis for expansion. Arriva have been shoved out of east Durham because they got sniffy about single digit margins. To an extent the same thing has happened in Calderdale with First and Centrebus/Yorkshire Tiger.

Its the bigger profit makers that hold a lot of the less profitable services together and allow for some to last longer. Definitely works in Glasgow as this city is one of First's strongest operations. There's also the advantage up here that a lot of services cover areas with less used services so there's not massive amounts of areas with one bus only. There is a few but always better services nearby

 

[6Gman]

I expect both buses and libraries (and public toilets) to exist as essential public services in a civilised country - I don't consider I should be seen as a "customer" in either instance.

Well, yes - but how do you decide how many should there be?

 

[AlbertBeale]

Well, yes - but how do you decide how many should there be?

Like you decide how many fire stations there are, or any other public service - according to need and social usefulness, primarily.

 

[PaulMc7]

Like you decide how many fire stations there are, or any other public service - according to need and social usefulness, primarily.

Wouldn't really work in some places. Public services still need to be very cost effective to be ran and with buses it would still lead to priorities because too many people would have different requirements so it would be impossible to cater to everyone

 

[AlbertBeale]

Wouldn't really work in some places. Public services still need to be very cost effective to be ran and with buses it would still lead to priorities because too many people would have different requirements so it would be impossible to cater to everyone

Of course, you can't cater for everyone's exact preferences. But you can make judgements based on what needs are, including what's makes sense for society as a whole and for the ecosystem, rather than making judgments based on richer people getting more say on public services than poorer people.

And "cost effective" isn't something with an absolute and unarguable definition - those using such criteria often don't take externalities into account, and/or make judgment where quantification is really rather subjective., And there are obvious inconsistencies, like train passengers - and car drivers - having their time valued in a way that isn't applied to bus passengers ... based on experts' views of the "sort of people" who use different transport modes perhaps? (The point about bus passengers explains why open-back double-crewed buses in London have been dismissed as costly - they're not if you put a value on the time saved by passengers on account of people's journeys being quicker.)

 

[PaulMc7]

Of course, you can't cater for everyone's exact preferences. But you can make judgements based on what needs are, including what's makes sense for society as a whole and for the ecosystem, rather than making judgments based on richer people getting more say on public services than poorer people.

And "cost effective" isn't something with an absolute and unarguable definition - those using such criteria often don't take externalities into account, and/or make judgment where quantification is really rather subjective., And there are obvious inconsistencies, like train passengers - and car drivers - having their time valued in a way that isn't applied to bus passengers ... based on experts' views of the "sort of people" who use different transport modes perhaps? (The point about bus passengers explains why open-back double-crewed buses in London have been dismissed as costly - they're not if you put a value on the time saved by passengers on account of people's journeys being quicker.)

It could definitely benefit the environment by running public services more and providing incentives for not using cars etc but so many councils don't have the budgets to run a bus network and the government are hopeless just now. There's so many other things that need larger budgets but if they can't get it then there's no chances buses would

 

[ClydeCoaster]

Like you decide how many fire stations there are, or any other public service - according to need and social usefulness, primarily.

Of course, you can't cater for everyone's exact preferences. But you can make judgements based on what needs are, including what's makes sense for society as a whole and for the ecosystem, rather than making judgments based on richer people getting more say on public services than poorer people.

A fire station as an emergency life saving service is something you hope will be rarely used, it's there for public safety. A library and a bus service are not comparable to a fire station. If literally no one uses them, if a bus is running empty most of the day, then how do you judge it as a public need? In that definition, anything can be a public need - that no one uses it is irrelevant. Public subsidised bus services being withdrawn are examples of where the local authority has decided it is no longer a need, because no one is using it.

 

[Journeyman]

That's my point - public services shouldn't be run by private companies who take decisions on commercial grounds.

But prior to 1986, when deregulation was introduced, buses were mainly run by municipals or the NBC/SBG, so were state-owned, and usage had been plunging downwards for decades. How much public money do you want to spend carting fresh air about?

 

[AlbertBeale]

But prior to 1986, when deregulation was introduced, buses were mainly run by municipals or the NBC/SBG, so were state-owned, and usage had been plunging downwards for decades. How much public money do you want to spend carting fresh air about?

Since the survival of our ecosystem (and our sanity) requires - amongst many other things - phasing out most private cars, then buses are essential. It makes obvious sense to improve bus services in parallel with getting rid of cars, and if that means that some buses are less than fully utilised, fair enough. A bus which is three-quarters empty is still far far better, in the scheme of things, than an individual in a car.

(And as far as public money is concerned, it's not some kind of precisely-defined finite pot - that's not how the finance system works. Resources can be made available if there's the political will.)

 

[AlbertBeale]

A fire station as an emergency life saving service is something you hope will be rarely used, it's there for public safety. A library and a bus service are not comparable to a fire station. If literally no one uses them, if a bus is running empty most of the day, then how do you judge it as a public need? In that definition, anything can be a public need - that no one uses it is irrelevant. Public subsidised bus services being withdrawn are examples of where the local authority has decided it is no longer a need, because no one is using it.

Libraries and buses are indeed different from fire stations - though I'd say they're also absolutely essential for a sustainable and egalitarian society.

 

[radamfi]

But prior to 1986, when deregulation was introduced, buses were mainly run by municipals or the NBC/SBG, so were state-owned, and usage had been plunging downwards for decades. How much public money do you want to spend carting fresh air about?

There's a middle way between state ownership and deregulation and used for about half the bus trips in England.

 

[carlberry]

Since the survival of our ecosystem (and our sanity) requires - amongst many other things - phasing out most private cars, then buses are essential. It makes obvious sense to improve bus services in parallel with getting rid of cars, and if that means that some buses are less than fully utilised, fair enough. A bus which is three-quarters empty is still far far better, in the scheme of things, than an individual in a car.

(And as far as public money is concerned, it's not some kind of precisely-defined finite pot - that's not how the finance system works. Resources can be made available if there's the political will.)

All very good arguments however we're still a long way from being in a position where any politicians would take decisions at a national level which would restrict the private motorist or expand taxation revenue enough to impact bus services in a meaningful way (as health, schools and social care will be nearer the front of the queue).
Unfortunately a subsidised bus service that's carrying air on most journeys is worse for the environment than the same people using cars however noble the idea might be.

 

[ClydeCoaster]

All very good arguments however we're still a long way from being in a position where any politicians would take decisions at a national level which would restrict the private motorist or expand taxation revenue enough to impact bus services in a meaningful way (as health, schools and social care will be nearer the front of the queue).
Unfortunately a subsidised bus service that's carrying air on most journeys is worse for the environment than the same people using cars however noble the idea might be.

Precisely. Short of forcing people out of their cars, you're not going to fill the empty bus trundling around and polluting the atmosphere because there's an ill-defined need for it. And how do you define, then, the frequency of a bus service no one uses? If it's hourly and no one uses it, can you increase it to half hourly or every 15 minutes? If it still runs empty, can it then go back to hourly or even 2 hourly, probably incurring the wrath of a local paper because someone once used it because it was "frequent"? You can only define what a need is if the need actually shows up.

 

[AlbertBeale]

... Short of forcing people out of their cars ....

It might come to this, given the state of our ecosystem.

 

[Andyh82]

If a bus route is washing its face I'm confused how that is a problem?

Arriva County Durham is an example of how it goes wrong. They had the hold on the Durham coalfield but the profit margins weren't high enough for targets from head office. So they retrenched, with an independent (Jayline) taking over. Jayline was very successful and so Go North East now own it, and have used it as a basis for expansion. Arriva have been shoved out of east Durham because they got sniffy about single digit margins. To an extent the same thing has happened in Calderdale with First and Centrebus/Yorkshire Tiger.

I’m not sure that’s quite true in Calderdale. Tiger don’t really run much that First ever ran commercially.

They won the contract for the rural tendered network, and then the town work is what they acquired when HJC gave up.

First seem happy not gaining back the tenders, they’d need a new fleet as First WY don’t run any minibuses now, and Tiger don’t seem to want to expand commercially encroaching on First’s network, so in Halifax both seem to run along fine.