The provincial operators could easily speed up boarding times without compromising fraud protection by implementing touch in touch out smartcards like the Dutch and Trent Barton, but they aren't prepared to invest in the technology. Even a supposedly innovative operator like Stagecoach are still wedded to painfully slow cash payment. Even low tech solutions like strip tickets or bus stop ticket machines as commonly used elsewhere in Europe would be a big improvement. With much fanfare, First claimed a long time ago that they would have a touch in touch out smartcard/contactless card facility. In some areas the ticket machines have been installed for some time, so what's the delay?
It may seem unfair that London's buses get a lot more subsidy than the rest of the country, but how does the subsidy in London compare with cities in the rest of Europe? Probably unfavourably, given that fares in London are not that cheap when compared to places outside the UK, especially when interchange between buses and between buses and trams/metros are taken into account. So it is not that London has too much subsidy, it is more that the rest of the country has hardly any, and what little there is, is mostly spent on free passes and less important services.
But what would the rest of the country do with more subsidy? It would be good to reinstate tendered services that have been cut in recent years so that most places have a reasonable service, but the vast majority of services, and the ones carrying the vast majority of passengers, are commercial services where no subsidy is allowed. I suppose BSOG could be increased, but that would really be tinkering around the edges and may translate into increased profits rather than reduced fares. So I conclude that the subsidy wouldn't be well spent outside London unless a Quality Contract is imposed.
Introducing more bus priority and new busways would be a wise use of public money inside or outside London, but this is usually referred to as investment rather than subsidy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
By the way, just in case people weren't aware, the NBfL does not, strictly speaking, have air conditioning. If it did, it would need a third axle. It has an uprated air cooling system.
It may seem unfair that London's buses get a lot more subsidy than the rest of the country, but how does the subsidy in London compare with cities in the rest of Europe? Probably unfavourably, given that fares in London are not that cheap when compared to places outside the UK, especially when interchange between buses and between buses and trams/metros are taken into account. So it is not that London has too much subsidy, it is more that the rest of the country has hardly any, and what little there is, is mostly spent on free passes and less important services.
But what would the rest of the country do with more subsidy? It would be good to reinstate tendered services that have been cut in recent years so that most places have a reasonable service, but the vast majority of services, and the ones carrying the vast majority of passengers, are commercial services where no subsidy is allowed. I suppose BSOG could be increased, but that would really be tinkering around the edges and may translate into increased profits rather than reduced fares. So I conclude that the subsidy wouldn't be well spent outside London unless a Quality Contract is imposed.
Introducing more bus priority and new busways would be a wise use of public money inside or outside London, but this is usually referred to as investment rather than subsidy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
By the way, just in case people weren't aware, the NBfL does not, strictly speaking, have air conditioning. If it did, it would need a third axle. It has an uprated air cooling system.
