First Group: General Discussion

[Jordan Adam]

On another note buses in Aberdeen have spent the past 3 weeks going around with the wrong destinations programmed in because the person who updates the displays updated the April 2016 file to all the buses instead of the April 2018 file. Then to put salt in the wound the file they've put in now is full of errors. As such buses on the 1A, 8, 8A, 17B, 18 and 20 are having to run with incorrect destinations or use alternatives. Strangely only some buses are affected and it seems to be a bit random!

On the 1A heading to Hillhead Of Seaton buses are stating "St Machar Drive". Buses to RGU and Castle Street are unaffected.
On the 8 there's no "ARI" destination, so buses are running to the city centre as "8 City Centre" and then changing to "8A ARI".
For a few days last week all the 8/8A destinations got wipe.
The 17B is using the destinations of the 17 and old 17B. North bound they're stating "Bucksburn" instead of "Four Mile", this is not much of an issues as they're in effect the same place. Southbound they're using "17 City centre".
Most 18s are unaffected but the AM peak journey from Sir Duncan Rice Library to Danestone (Tesco) is having to use "18A Haudagain Roundabout" despite the fact the 18 doesn't serve it!
LED fitted buses on the 20 are only able to show "20 Balnagask" and "20 City Centre" so when heading to Dubford they have to use the Citycentre destination. On this one Flip-dot buses seem unaffected.

Seems very much a farce to me but so far the service changes have improved reliability and the numbers on the merged 20/X40 are far more sustainable and could see a frequency increase.

Apparently only 1 person at Aberdeen is "trained" to update the displays on the buses, to me this seems very daft, and even then surely they could explain to someone through text or video call how to update the displays!

 

[GusB]

Oh dear, sounds like a bit of a mess! Bring back roller blinds, and the odd paper sticker for the windscreeen!

 

[Stef434]

They are! Unfortunately, politicians, like Planners, are seduced by the Holy Grail of Integration, as they don't actually travel by bus (or indeed local rail) very often, so don't see EVERY time they leave the house the reasons why it will never work.

Are you referring to First Bus Planning/Service Schedulers...seduced......the Holy Grail of Integration that will be right...Integration was never on the table due to MMC and Scotrail Compliance First Bus were handcuffed for years by the Scotrail Franchise.....First Scotland East/Midland Bluebird are still picking up the pieces.

 

[overthewater]

You can add First Glasgow to that aswell...

 

[Dentonian]

Are you referring to First Bus Planning/Service Schedulers...seduced......the Holy Grail of Integration that will be right...Integration was never on the table due to MMC and Scotrail Compliance First Bus were handcuffed for years by the Scotrail Franchise.....First Scotland East/Midland Bluebird are still picking up the pieces.

I was referring to the consistently awful punctuality off both bus and rail (albeit for different for reasons), but yes the legal stupidity is just as relevant: Competition for competition's sake, and forget the market is rarely big enough to stand it.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

First have made a faustian pact: HQ can stave the OpCos of investment and, in exchange, they can do pretty well what they like, so no-one is under any pressure nor has to change. Yes, they do alter services, but looks to me like it's always the easy option, and usually for their own convenience rather than to make a better business or for the benefit of the passengers.

Yep, that's what we need. A return to centralised diktats....

I don't know First Essex. All businesses are there to make money and budgets will be agreed (centrally and with the local team). First's operations vary markedly in geography and demographics and some OpCos have better managers. How good First's local team is, or how good the council is, I don't know.

However, I'm sure that many firms across the country are trying to maintain margins (or reduce their erosion), against a backdrop of increasing congestion and reducing high street footfall. They try to do this without affecting passengers too much but some tough decisions are having to be made.

 

[Dentonian]

Yep, that's what we need. A return to centralised diktats....


However, I'm sure that many firms across the country are trying to maintain margins (or reduce their erosion), against a backdrop of increasing congestion and reducing high street footfall. They try to do this without affecting passengers too much but some tough decisions are having to be made.

Trouble is, the deregulated bus industry refuse to accept any blame for increased congestion over the last 32 years.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Trouble is, the deregulated bus industry refuse to accept any blame for increased congestion over the last 32 years.

Nor should it accept all the blame and remember that UK bus patronage was falling for 30 years before deregulation!

 

[Observer]

Apparently only 1 person at Aberdeen is "trained" to update the displays on the buses, to me this seems very daft, and even then surely they could explain to someone through text or video call how to update the displays!

Not like they're hard to program, anyone and their dog could do them. Much easier with the USB units too.

 

[Robertj21a]

Trouble is, the deregulated bus industry refuse to accept any blame for increased congestion over the last 32 years.

I honestly can't think of very many places where we now have increased congestion caused by de-regulation. Which places are the worst in your view ?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I honestly can't think of very many places where we now have increased congestion caused by de-regulation. Which places are the worst in your view ?

Car ownership has grown fairly steadily since 1950. https://assets.publishing.service.g...ttachment_data/file/8995/vehicles-summary.pdf

Deregulation and the immediate aftermath didn’t do patronage any favours but traffic congestion is a natural outcome of successive pro-car policies.

 

[Robertj21a]

Car ownership has grown fairly steadily since 1950. https://assets.publishing.service.g...ttachment_data/file/8995/vehicles-summary.pdf

Deregulation and the immediate aftermath didn’t do patronage any favours but traffic congestion is a natural outcome of successive pro-car policies.

Agreed, but the point was '....the deregulated bus industry refuse to accept any blame for increased congestion.......'

I'd still like to better understand where this currently applies.

 

[Dentonian]

Nor should it accept all the blame and remember that UK bus patronage was falling for 30 years before deregulation!

True. But it can't keep blaming congestion as if they haven't contributed through service cuts and fare hikes forcing people to speed up the acquisition of cars, or even acquire a car despite all their other misgivings (pollution etc).

 

[Dentonian]

Car ownership has grown fairly steadily since 1950. https://assets.publishing.service.g...ttachment_data/file/8995/vehicles-summary.pdf

Deregulation and the immediate aftermath didn’t do patronage any favours but traffic congestion is a natural outcome of successive pro-car policies.

There are two points.
1. There are many and varied reasons for the increase in congestion, but one is deregulation itself.
2. How much was bus patronage falling over that 30 year period? In GM, it fell from 346 million to 250 million virtually overnight on 26 October 1986, and whilst it stabilised in the late 90s and early noughties, it is now dropping like a stone again, with mid year figures for 2017 stating 196.5 million. And as Stagecoach fare rises in particular have far outstripped Inflation over the last 13 months, there is no reason to expect a recovery.

 

[radamfi]

We have had near universal car ownership in most of western Europe for many years now yet proper bus/tram services continue to be offered. There has been near universal car ownership in southern England for decades. However, car driving and licence holding has become less common for young adults in the last 10-15 years. What is particularly embarrassing for Manchester is that so many young carless people have flocked to the city, yet bus operators haven't been able to take advantage of it.

 

[James101]

There are two points.
1. There are many and varied reasons for the increase in congestion, but one is deregulation itself.
2. How much was bus patronage falling over that 30 year period? In GM, it fell from 346 million to 250 million virtually overnight on 26 October 1986, and whilst it stabilised in the late 90s and early noughties, it is now dropping like a stone again, with mid year figures for 2017 stating 196.5 million. And as Stagecoach fare rises in particular have far outstripped Inflation over the last 13 months, there is no reason to expect a recovery.

Have you got the Metrolink growth figures for the same period? I’m constantly reading bus ridership in GM is declining but surely this is balanced by Metrolink growth. The most recent expansions; Wythenshawe, Ashton and Didsbury were always key bus, train-less corridors. Met’s passengers can only come from the bus or private car.

Can you blame them really? While there’s precious little bus priority along Princess Parkway, trams have signal priority and segregated running. If the target is to have a better public transportation system, rather than a better bus network - GM is doing okay. It’s just regrettable the two modes compete rather than interwork.

 

[tbtc]

as Stagecoach fare rises in particular have far outstripped Inflation over the last 13 months, there is no reason to expect a recovery.

You mean you've deliberately chosen a thirteen month period so that it covers two lots of annual fare rise to make Stagecoach look bad?

Seems a bit skewed...

What is particularly embarrassing for Manchester is that so many young carless people have flocked to the city, yet bus operators haven't been able to take advantage of it.

IS that embarrassing?

Or is it the case that these young people "flocking" to the city centre are living in the kind of flats around the city centre where everything is within walking distance? In which case they aren't going to queue for bus services to pay money to travel round the corner - however perfect the frequency and fares - the thousands of flats that have gone up around central Manchester are designed for "young carless people" to live in without needing to commute far.

I know people are queuing up to blame bus companies, but there's not much they can do here.

Have you got the Metrolink growth figures for the same period? I’m constantly reading bus ridership in GM is declining but surely this is balanced by Metrolink growth. The most recent expansions; Wythenshawe, Ashton and Didsbury were always key bus, train-less corridors. Met’s passengers can only come from the bus or private car.

Can you blame them really? While there’s precious little bus priority along Princess Parkway, trams have signal priority and segregated running. If the target is to have a better public transportation system, rather than a better bus network - GM is doing okay. It’s just regrettable the two modes compete rather than interwork.

Agreed.

Metrolink has been able to cherry-pick the busiest bus corridors and provide a better service (given the segregated nature of light rail etc). Which is fair enough - if routes are busy enough for a double decker bus every five minutes then it's worth considering a tram route down that corridor. You just can't then blame bus companies for passenger numbers falling (if a tram comes along to take them).

 

[radamfi]

Or is it the case that these young people "flocking" to the city centre are living in the kind of flats around the city centre where everything is within walking distance? In which case they aren't going to queue for bus services to pay money to travel round the corner - however perfect the frequency and fares - the thousands of flats that have gone up around central Manchester are designed for "young carless people" to live in without needing to commute far.

I know people are queuing up to blame bus companies, but there's not much they can do here.

You've got a fair point regarding incomers. If you move somewhere you would ideally try and live somewhere convenient. Others may choose to live near Metrolink stops, again avoiding the need for the bus. However, unless they spend their entire life in and around the city centre, and not everyone works in the city centre, they will need transport to get around other parts of the city. They may well be using Uber/tram for such journeys instead of buses.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

We have had near universal car ownership in most of western Europe for many years now yet proper bus/tram services continue to be offered. There has been near universal car ownership in southern England for decades. However, car driving and licence holding has become less common for young adults in the last 10-15 years. What is particularly embarrassing for Manchester is that so many young carless people have flocked to the city, yet bus operators haven't been able to take advantage of it.

So looking at it another way - Germany (which has often been cited by yourself as an aspiration model of public transport provision and integration) has a higher level of car ownership per capita than the UK at 593/1000 (vs UK at 587 and the EU in general at 573). So despite all this investment, it still fails to get people to ditch the car? Italy and Spain are higher still!

Have you got the Metrolink growth figures for the same period? I’m constantly reading bus ridership in GM is declining but surely this is balanced by Metrolink growth. The most recent expansions; Wythenshawe, Ashton and Didsbury were always key bus, train-less corridors. Met’s passengers can only come from the bus or private car.

Absolutely correct. During the first phase, Metrolink rose from 11m journeys pa to about 15m. Then a step in 2000..... it was the Eccles line opening. That took it to about 18m and it grew further to be fairly steady in the mid to late noughties at around 20m. In 2010/1, it was 19m yet by 2013/4, it was 28m and by 2016/7, it was 37m. Only a "flat earther" would believe that a significant number of these are not taken from parallel bus services.

Then you have the decline in retail footfall in many of the towns that constitute Greater Manchester, both as a consequence of car friendly out of town locations such as the Trafford Centre and Middlebrook and that is now overlaid by the decline in high street sales. Then you have uber as a major disruptor for millennials' travel needs.

There is an existential challenge for all bus operators, irrespective of the level of regulation!

 

[radamfi]

So looking at it another way - Germany (which has often been cited by yourself as an aspiration model of public transport provision and integration) has a higher level of car ownership per capita than the UK at 593/1000 (vs UK at 587 and the EU in general at 573). So despite all this investment, it still fails to get people to ditch the car? Italy and Spain are higher still!

Switzerland, the most renowned country for public transport, also has very high car ownership. It is unrealistic to expect people to ditch the car. It is about getting people to use public transport instead of the car for some journeys. As well as high car ownership, the Netherlands also has mass bike use for local journeys, meaning the captive market for bus use is tiny. But, despite that, the Dutch still think it is important to provide a comprehensive and quality bus service.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Switzerland, the most renowned country for public transport, also has very high car ownership. It is unrealistic to expect people to ditch the car. It is about getting people to use public transport instead of the car for some journeys. As well as high car ownership, the Netherlands also has mass bike use for local journeys, meaning the captive market for bus use is tiny. But, despite that, the Dutch still think it is important to provide a comprehensive and quality bus service.

So what you're saying is that you can provide a comprehensive and quality bus service and yet it has no actual impact on car ownership levels.

Also, interestingly, the UK is one country in the EU where overall public transport usage is increasing whilst another one of your examplars of how it should be done is Denmark whose overall usage is declining. Netherlands didn't provide figures!

 

[overthewater]

Same happened in Glasgow, bus ridership want down while rail ridership skyrocketed. There still Plenty Of scope to get more car drivers out of their cars.

 

[radamfi]

So what you're saying is that you can provide a comprehensive and quality bus service and yet it has no actual impact on car ownership levels.

Also, interestingly, the UK is one country in the EU where overall public transport usage is increasing whilst another one of your examplars of how it should be done is Denmark whose overall usage is declining. Netherlands didn't provide figures!

I don't think anyone has claimed that providing a good bus service will stop people owning a car. Most people in the developed world have got sufficient disposable income that car ownership is readily affordable.

It isn't particularly meaningful to say "increasing" or "decreasing" when the absolute value is what counts. If someone at school consistently gets an A+ but then falls to an A, they are still "better" than someone who has improved from an E to a C. You could say, for example, bus use in London is decreasing but in Thurrock it is increasing. That doesn't mean of course that bus usage in Thurrock is higher than London. The key metric that should be measured is the proportion of trips or distance travelled by car. But even that is not 100% useful as you also have to take into account the level of captivity. For example, if public transport trips to central London are increasing because of the continued buoyancy of the London economy, that is going to skew public transport mode share for the city and country as a whole, because car is not an option for most people making that trip.

The Netherlands will probably have one of the lowest public transport usage levels in the world because of the mass usage of bikes. For health and environmental reasons, it is not desirable for buses to replace bike trips.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't think anyone has claimed that providing a good bus service will stop people owning a car. Most people in the developed world have got sufficient disposable income that car ownership is readily affordable.

It isn't particularly meaningful to say "increasing" or "decreasing" when the absolute value is what counts. If someone at school consistently gets an A+ but then falls to an A, they are still "better" than someone who has improved from an E to a C. You could say, for example, bus use in London is decreasing but in Thurrock it is increasing. That doesn't mean of course that bus usage in Thurrock is higher than London. The key metric that should be measured is the proportion of trips or distance travelled by car. But even that is not 100% useful as you also have to take into account the level of captivity. For example, if public transport trips to central London are increasing because of the continued buoyancy of the London economy, that is going to skew public transport mode share for the city and country as a whole, because car is not an option for most people making that trip.

The Netherlands will probably have one of the lowest public transport usage levels in the world because of the mass usage of bikes. For health and environmental reasons, it is not desirable for buses to replace bike trips.

Hmmm - you are scornful when people illustrate the differences in the UK but happy to highlight those in Netherlands? Curious

 

[radamfi]

Hmmm - you are scornful when people illustrate the differences in the UK but happy to highlight those in Netherlands? Curious

Which differences are you talking about? In theory, buses in Britain *should* do better than the Netherlands because there are still areas of low car ownership, there are bigger metropolitan areas in the UK and bike travel is particularly unattractive.

 

[tbtc]

You've got a fair point regarding incomers. If you move somewhere you would ideally try and live somewhere convenient. Others may choose to live near Metrolink stops, again avoiding the need for the bus. However, unless they spend their entire life in and around the city centre, and not everyone works in the city centre, they will need transport to get around other parts of the city. They may well be using Uber/tram for such journeys instead of buses.

....but if you live in one of the thousands of flats a stone's throw from Manchester City Centre/ Universities then you won't need to use the bus five days a week to come to work/ study.

Maybe you'll use a bus to take you out to the Trafford Centre at the weekend but most journeys from central Manchester have a light/heavy rail option - most of the places that rely on (only) buses are suburbia rather than "destinations".

So the thousands of people living around the centre is great for the environment but poor for bus operators.

Switzerland, the most renowned country for public transport, also has very high car ownership. It is unrealistic to expect people to ditch the car. It is about getting people to use public transport instead of the car for some journeys. As well as high car ownership, the Netherlands also has mass bike use for local journeys, meaning the captive market for bus use is tiny. But, despite that, the Dutch still think it is important to provide a comprehensive and quality bus service.

So it's important to pay for fantastic public transport, even if only a small number of people actually use it?

Sounds nice, in a perfect world, but seems pretty unrealistic in modern day Austerity Britain, which is why it seems pointless talking about such utopian stuff.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Which differences are you talking about? In theory, buses in Britain *should* do better than the Netherlands because there are still areas of low car ownership, there are bigger metropolitan areas in the UK and bike travel is particularly unattractive.

So when you wrote, rather sniffily....

"The service was poor in comparison with other cities, especially those abroad and
compared to other operators in the conurbation"

We are always told that international comparisons are irrelevant because of the particular British circumstances.

...you would argue that countries can have differences. Netherlands in terms of cycling infrastructure, UK in terms of approach to public transport funding and capital vs. revenue spend, extent of local rail provision, etc.

Perhaps you're agreeing - different countries have specific individual characteristics?

Still doesn't excuse the Borismaster though

 

[Baxenden Bank]

....but if you live in one of the thousands of flats a stone's throw from Manchester City Centre/ Universities then you won't need to use the bus five days a week to come to work/ study.

Maybe you'll use a bus to take you out to the Trafford Centre at the weekend but most journeys from central Manchester have a light/heavy rail option - most of the places that rely on (only) buses are suburbia rather than "destinations".

So the thousands of people living around the centre is great for the environment but poor for bus operators.



So it's important to pay for fantastic public transport, even if only a small number of people actually use it?

Sounds nice, in a perfect world, but seems pretty unrealistic in modern day Austerity Britain, which is why it seems pointless talking about such utopian stuff.

Plenty of money gets thrown at public transport in London, lots of people use it. Perhaps we could give it a go elsewhere in the country. And I don't mean a one month trial, oh no one used it, lets give up, at least we can say we tried.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Plenty of money gets thrown at public transport in London, lots of people use it. Perhaps we could give it a go elsewhere in the country. And I don't mean a one month trial, oh no one used it, lets give up, at least we can say we tried.

Didn't they do that with three schemes in Darlington, Worcester and Peterborough in the early noughties?

Besides, the issues are far more fundamental than throwing money to run bus services that no-one uses (see various RBC services in the past) or shiny bus stops. How do you dissuade car travel? How do you influence planning to ensure that new developments are accessible to bus services? How do you design road usage to promote safe cycling and bus usage?

Anyhow, we are drifting away from the actual subject of the thread (and I'm as guilty as anyone)

 

[radamfi]

So it's important to pay for fantastic public transport, even if only a small number of people actually use it?

Sounds nice, in a perfect world, but seems pretty unrealistic in modern day Austerity Britain, which is why it seems pointless talking about such utopian stuff.

It would be an exaggeration to say "only a small number of people actually use it", especially when talking about train use and local public transport use in the major cities, but yes, on the whole, there is no developed country, other than possibly some city states, where public transport is used for the majority of trips. For that to happen there would need to be draconian curbs on private car use. It is still important to provide good public transport regardless as it still makes a contribution to congestion relief and provides transport for those who choose not to have a car, or for those who can't have access to one for whatever reason.