I agree that change shouldn't be carried out for the sake of it. Passengers do want consistency and reliability. However, while a reduction in cross-city routes might improve the latter, it would surely be more inconvenient for many. The 2 is a great example which allows me to get from East to West on 1 bus with 1 ticket. If I want to go north, however, it's one bus into town and another out - 2 tickets with a walk/wait in the middle - much less convenient. I used to work in the City Centre, and would walk to Hope Street and get the 10 home. When it was replaced by the 87 from Buchanan Bus Station, they advised passengers to get the 9/9A to connect with it. That was not an improvement for me.
The only other thing I can think of is to have a central interchange (e.g. the bus station) with a number of core routes terminating there, e.g. 38/75/2, whatever are the busiest and cover all the main corridors. Have a common frequency (say every 10 minutes), that way passengers losing their cross-city routes would know that it would only be a short transfer time. And consider each journey with a central transfer as one.
In the examples previously given, my 2 would terminate at the central interchange, but I would know that I should be able to step onto a westbound bus within 10 minutes. I would no longer need to use 2 tickets to get to the north from the east. And I could step onto any northbound bus at Hope Street, knowing I could transfer easily to my 87. I would probably sacrifice my cross-city routes if such an arrangement was viable.
