Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
No commercial bus company cares about dwell times, as if they did they would be moving more ticketing off bus in a manner that speeds things up, introducing tap on/off contactless and ordering buses with rear exit doors. They are mostly not doing any of those things, and as such we can conclude they are quite happy with PVRs* being higher than necessary and the passenger service being slower than it could be.
No commercial bus company cares about dwell times, as if they did they would be moving more ticketing off bus in a manner that speeds things up, introducing tap on/off contactless and ordering buses with rear exit doors. They are mostly not doing any of those things, and as such we can conclude they are quite happy with PVRs* being higher than necessary and the passenger service being slower than it could be.
Many bus operators are pushing off bus ticketing to be fair by offering discounts for app tickets and now many of the flexible tickets which are coming out, they are only available on the apps.
Tap in, tap off contactless won't always be quicker versus paying for a ticket. Especially with things such as a day ticket. Tap in and tap off on every bus. Or, pay once and just scan the QR code each time you board (no 'task' when you alight the vehicle and also the QR codes scan quicker than the machines recognise and do the 'tap in' on the card.
One thing that I think is an issue though for off bus ticketing is the only ways for this to work is on an app (no issues there), using travel shops (many have closed down because it costs more than they're worth to keep open) or self serve machines like London had but that then needs staff to go around and collect revenue and that comes with a risk of theft too. The only other option is the PayPoint in local convenience stores but Arriva did that for years and no one knew that it existed.
Rear doors is not the be all, end all since these would increase dwell times on many routes. The only time you get a dwell time benefit from dual doors is where there are a large amount of stops where passengers would simultaneously board and alight. At other times, dual doors can become more of a hinderance than a help. If someone is alighting only, the alarm and handbrake lock mean from stopping to setting off again, the time it takes using the rear doors is longer than that of using the front doors. If people are boarding only, it makes no difference. The other issue with rear doors is the risk of losing revenue from people jumping aboard the rear doors and not paying. It's another thing to check and another thing to fail so more maintenance costs. Finally, the vast majority of routes are not set up for dual doors so bus stop shelters would need moving and bus stop cages need introducing and need to be longer because otherwise people alighting would end up having to jump onto the road and then step back up onto the pavement. There are so many cons to dual doors. It's a good thing that they aren't widespread. If they had such a time benefit, why hasn't Manchester got them? Even on the busway where TFGM could have specified dual door buses, it wasn't specified because quite simply, dual door buses aren't the all singing, all dancing solution which you portray them to be!
Many bus operators are pushing off bus ticketing to be fair by offering discounts for app tickets and now many of the flexible tickets which are coming out, they are only available on the apps.
True, but if those tickets are not designed and tested so people actually do move quicker, this won't work.
For instance, mobile tickets should not require activation (they are scanned now anyway), and should be shown on the front page of the company app with no need to log in to get to them.
Tap in, tap off contactless won't always be quicker versus paying for a ticket. Especially with things such as a day ticket. Tap in and tap off on every bus. Or, pay once and just scan the QR code each time you board (no 'task' when you alight the vehicle and also the QR codes scan quicker than the machines recognise and do the 'tap in' on the card.
As most people make one single-vehicle return journey, for most that means one lengthy transaction and one quicker one. The lengthy one is still a problem.
With regard to your latter point, go and use London buses and see that it can be instant. Ticketer is not fit for purpose in this regard, it is an incredibly clunky system that wastes seconds per transaction. It can be seen in London that implemented properly there is no need to break stride to tap. It is very close to as quick as open boarding.
They don't increase dwell time on any route, unless drivers are moving off with doors open which is not a practice which should be encouraged in the 21st century (and increasingly isn't possible on newer buses anyway). They are at worst neutral in terms of dwells.
The only time you get a dwell time benefit from dual doors is where there are a large amount of stops where passengers would simultaneously board and alight.
Certainly that is where they bring benefits. As it is profitable to sell off bus stations, and as cross town operation offers passengers a wider range of stops, this is very much the trend. Dual door is probably not worth it on routes where you just pick up on the way to the central bus station, but it is very much so on cross town routes.
London shows that this is a non-issue, and if you stick with wheelchair access at the front you can put mitigating features in e.g. the one way sprung gates First Manchester used to have on their bendies.
Finally, the vast majority of routes are not set up for dual doors so bus stop shelters would need moving and bus stop cages need introducing and need to be longer because otherwise people alighting would end up having to jump onto the road and then step back up onto the pavement. There are so many cons to dual doors. It's a good thing that they aren't widespread.
If they had such a time benefit, why hasn't Manchester got them? Even on the busway where TFGM could have specified dual door buses, it wasn't specified because quite simply, dual door buses aren't the all singing, all dancing solution which you portray them to be!
Even Dublin is learning. I noticed on my trip there last summer that Go-Ahead in particular seems to have two doors on its new double deckers. If I recall, Dublin Bus wanted two door buses years ago but it was the union(s) who got in the way.
True, but if those tickets are not designed and tested so people actually do move quicker, this won't work.
For instance, mobile tickets should not require activation (they are scanned now anyway), and should be shown on the front page of the company app with no need to log in to get to them.
Yes and no. I can see both sides of it. The log in thing works so that you can log into any device to sort a ticket. Else you would have to buy your ticket and have to use the ticket on the same device. For 99% of people, that works but there is always some who dislike that.
The activation thing is done to active that days code and it downloads the ticket to your phone so that you can use it offline.
Both ways of working are valid and it depends what you want, passenger convenience (offline mode and switching between devices) or minimise dwell time.
As most people make one single-vehicle return journey, for most that means one lengthy transaction and one quicker one. The lengthy one is still a problem.
With regard to your latter point, go and use London buses and see that it can be instant. Ticketer is not fit for purpose in this regard, it is an incredibly clunky system that wastes seconds per transaction. It can be seen in London that implemented properly there is no need to break stride to tap. It is very close to as quick as open boarding.
Where it is a flat fare and so no tap off is needed and where a quicker machine than Ticketer is being used, yes, granted. Tap on, tap off will be quicker. If Ticketer is being used, it will take longer and it always will take longer if people have to tap out.
It's something which, in time, could help things but right now, it won't do much. As you say, Ticketer doesn't work for this in it's current state. My point remains though that for anyone who does more than a simple return journey, over the day, the individual passengers dwell time will likely be higher than purchasing a ticket.
They don't increase dwell time on any route, unless drivers are moving off with doors open which is not a practice which should be encouraged in the 21st century (and increasingly isn't possible on newer buses anyway). They are at worst neutral in terms of dwells.
The dwell time is longer. You'd be daft to think otherwise. Front doors, driver presses the button, door closes, brake releases, off you go. Rear doors, you have to check they are clear using cameras and the mirror, press the button, alarm starts, then doors close, brake release takes longer normally and then off you go.
Certainly that is where they bring benefits. As it is profitable to sell off bus stations, and as cross town operation offers passengers a wider range of stops, this is very much the trend. Dual door is probably not worth it on routes where you just pick up on the way to the central bus station, but it is very much so on cross town routes.
Very true but you also need high patronage along the route too since just having 5 town centre stops where people board and alight will not suffice such investment. Brighton and Hove has done it and while I can't speak for whether it has brought benefits to them or not, the borough has the highest bus usage per head, outside of London so I would say it is reasonable to assume that they have a fair number of stops outside of the town as well where passengers board and alight simultaneously.
London shows that this is a non-issue, and if you stick with wheelchair access at the front you can put mitigating features in e.g. the one way sprung gates First Manchester used to have on their bendies.
Think you'll find it is an issue in London. Maybe not the biggest problem the network faces but it is an issue. There have been documentaries on it about the fare dodgers. It is an issue and claiming otherwise is naive.
Yes and no. I can see both sides of it. The log in thing works so that you can log into any device to sort a ticket. Else you would have to buy your ticket and have to use the ticket on the same device. For 99% of people, that works but there is always some who dislike that.
The activation thing is done to active that days code and it downloads the ticket to your phone so that you can use it offline.
You don't need either. Because they are now scanned, they can be marked used. Thus it no longer matters how many copies of them there are*. Like railway e-tickets, they could be offered in all manner of formats, e.g. inside the app, on an Apple Pay card, on Google Pay etc, so they are always ready when needed in a customer-convenient manner.
* Bit more complex with seasons, but it is not difficult, through "big data" based reporting, to work out the patterns of usage that showed that one season was consistently being used by multiple people, and to set up inspections in the right places to catch it.
Where it is a flat fare and so no tap off is needed and where a quicker machine than Ticketer is being used, yes, granted. Tap on, tap off will be quicker. If Ticketer is being used, it will take longer and it always will take longer if people have to tap out.
Ticketer provides many improvements, but at present in this specific regard is not fit for purpose due to a combination of being quite slow to read cards and because of the cack-handed process by which they are read (that is, putting one on too early requires the transaction to be reset, taking valuable seconds). However, as it is modular and software-based, these matters should be fixable quite easily, and would be if the bus companies piled on pressure about the costs (that they seem not to recognise) caused by stopping at a bus stop for any more time than is required for passengers to physically board and alight.
It's something which, in time, could help things but right now, it won't do much. As you say, Ticketer doesn't work for this in it's current state. My point remains though that for anyone who does more than a simple return journey, over the day, the individual passengers dwell time will likely be higher than purchasing a ticket.
The dwell time is longer. You'd be daft to think otherwise. Front doors, driver presses the button, door closes, brake releases, off you go. Rear doors, you have to check they are clear using cameras and the mirror, press the button, alarm starts, then doors close, brake release takes longer normally and then off you go.
Go to London and give it a go. Unless drivers are moving off with doors open, which again they should not be doing, it doesn't make much difference. On the other hand, what does is people waiting maybe 10 seconds for someone to move to the front from the back to alight, and only then being able to spend another 20 seconds negotiating a financial transaction.
And that waiting costs money and slows the journey down, making it less attractive to passengers.
We actually have a UK example of this working well - in the UK's largest city, with the highest level of bus patronage. Just go and give it a try!
Very true but you also need high patronage along the route too since just having 5 town centre stops where people board and alight will not suffice such investment.
There absolutely is. The UK provincial approach to urban and suburban buses - almost all of it - is stuck in a 1980s-1990s mindset of managed decline. It's almost all done wrong, while so much of Europe plus London does it right, yet the ultra-conservative bus companies look on and congratulate themselves for only losing a few passenger numbers that week to the cars advertised on the back of their buses.
It goes like this:
1. The first one-man buses were on rural and lightly trafficked suburban routes, where separate boarding and alighting was unnecessary, and peak time loadings meant that maximum capacity was important (rather than a dual door taking up seating space)
2. In some areas routes were operated with front entrance crew operated vehicles and passengers were used to boarding and alighting at the front.
3. Many urban operators purchased dual door vehicles to start mainstream one man operation
4. Roadside infrastructure was not altered to cater for dual door vehicles (or often indeed front entrance vehicles). This was usually just not thought of, or not financially possible. Many bus stops at the time would have had to cater for front, centre and rear door vehicles at the same time, taking up lots of kerb space and consequent reduction in parking spaces. In many places the bus operation was divorced, or certainly a silo department from, the highways authority.
5. Bus stop relocation or works is always a controversial subject - from the operators point of view often results in 'safety' audits resulting in a move to a less optimum location, and from the highway authority point of view is consultation and raises the ire of local residents/businesses, and costs money. Therefore to be avoided and 'let sleeping dogs lie' . These infrastructure works would require funding and a fairly long lead time, which was not available as OMO conversion was often a rushed job for various reasons.
6. Accidents involving passengers trapped by closing centre doors (esp. when passengers were standing between the cab and the centre doors), and/or alighting into unsuitable places (grass verges, drains, railings, shelters, parked vehicles), and incidents of passengers boarding through the centre doors with or without intent to avoid paying their fare meant that the driving staff did not like the centre doors, and operations management concurred with their view. (fewer insurance claims and bad publicity, more fares collected, and passengers kept coming to the front to alight anyway)
7. The UK and Ireland driving on the left meant that bespoke bodywork was being built, so no purchasing standard vehicles from Europe or America, so omitting the centre door probably made the vehicle cheaper rather than more expensive.
Quite simply, any marginal gains in dwell times are going to be dwarfed by losses to traffic congestion and I dare say most operators are well aware of this. May not be so much of an issue in London, with its relatively well-developed network of bus infrastructure (that is properly enforced!) but it is a really big deal for us “carrot-crunchers” in the provinces!
I have posted before about my time driving buses around Bristol and that 85 to 90% of my lost mileage was due to delays and disruption caused by traffic hold-ups; I’m not talking about 10 or 12 minute delays arriving at a terminus, I’m talking about being stuck in a queue of stationary traffic to the extent that, according to my duty card, I should be going past myself heading in the opposite direction! It was a fairly regular occurrence (about once a fortnight) to arrive at one terminus when scheduled to be arriving at the other end of the route. It was common to take ¾ of an hour to cover part of a route that was timetabled to take 12 or 15 minutes. I know that some other forum members are current or former drivers, and I should imagine that those who have worked in an urban environment will have their own tales to tell.
Fiddling about with door arrangements, ticket scanning or dwell times will not make much difference as things stand. Dwell time also includes allowing those less steady on their feet to find a seat or a person using mobility assistance to safely position and secure their wheelchair. We must have a fully inclusive and diverse approach to all bus passengers.
Until the 800lb gorilla in the room is addressed, no amount of tinkering around is going to make a difference.
That is just not factually true. It will make a small difference, and on routes with lots of buses that will mean a reduced PVR and so reduced costs as well as improved passenger experience. Granted, ticketing makes more difference than door layout, though.
Not every bus spends hours stuck in traffic.
Yes, the UK also needs to learn how to do bus priority properly, but it's an "and", not an "or".
That is just not factually true. It will make a small difference, and on routes with lots of buses that will mean a reduced PVR and so reduced costs as well as improved passenger experience. Granted, ticketing makes more difference than door layout, though.
Good lord - we're not back to the hoariest of old chestnuts here. Let's be absolutely clear...
Bus operators since the 1970s, when it was all still regulated, have predominantly gone for single door vehicles. West Midlands PTE stopped buying dual doors c.1970, Greater Manchester c.1973, TWPTE c.1978. Very few firms were still buying dual doors into the 1980s though there were obviously some firms - LT, Lothian, Bristol Omnibus and City of Oxford (mixed in with single doors for country routes) and random municipals such as Ipswich, Darlington, Hartlepool etc. The reasons have been explained ad nauseum - union opposition to dual door deckers, health and safety incidents including a fatality in Birmingham, erosion of vehicle capacity, increased vehicle complexity and maintenance, issues when cascading vehicles from urban to provincial routes. All factors that influenced a move onto single doors that consequently influenced the design of bus stations and roadside infrastructure. We have been round this loop several times.
Commercial operators have indeed assessed the costs associated with single doors and dwell times and it's often a marginal benefit compared to the other costs which is one reason why they've not revisited it, though also, the practicalities of introducing them (infrastructure) have played against this. If there was a compelling commercial benefit, and you slice the PVR, more would have done it in the deregulated era. One problem that dual doors brings is, of course, the low number of step free seats for pensioners in lower deck saloons. However, we have been through these arguments many times and operators have viewed the challenges (infrastructure, capacity, redeployment, capital cost, maintenance) as not being sufficiently outweighed by potential PVR savings.
Likewise, the issue of off bus ticketing. There is a strong case for operators to sell off bus tickets historically as a means of not only improving dwell times. It also helps with customer loyalty against competitors, and also improves cash flow. However, the fact is that when selling through newsagents and the like, the commission being taken just made it increasingly uneconomic. They were happy to keep enquiry offices open for such sales (again where the sums stacked up). However, modern technology was always the key to off bus sales. There were a few false dawns (remember Mondex anyone?) but magnetic cards came in during the early 1990s. However, the technology wasn't cheap and the investment case was difficult to make work. Operators would be happy if it could realise a 10% PVR saving but it just wasn't there.
However, the technology has moved on markedly and we see this with m-tickets and TOTO (tap on, tap off) with daily or weekly caps. I see it in Bristol where the number of cash fares is a fraction of what it was. There's been a concerted push to eradicate cash fares; in fact, I'm surprised that Covid wasn't used as a means to do just that (with all that filthy, germ ridden money) but then you'd have had the media stories about a key worker not having a smartphone or bank card and so being disenfranchised. In fact, Bristol is a location where dual door vehicles HAVE been reintroduced but notably, in certain circumstances. They are used on the Park and Ride, Metrobus and the X39 Bath to Bristol route. That's because of the limited number of stops, and that a 12m decker can be used on them. The main city routes haven't as, quite simply, they need shorter wheelbase vehicles and 62 seater deckers just won't cut it.
Flat fare makes it easier, but "tap on, tap off" can deliver the same thing.
Almost everyone is paying by some form of card for bus travel now. The vast majority are using concessionary cards, while young people are mostly using debit cards. That leaves a few cash payers which are heading to the point where they make little difference and speeding up the other two by way of "tap on, tap off" will make more difference.
German bus drivers accept cash, but as hardly anyone actually pays cash it makes barely any difference to operating speeds. It's an emergency "oops, forgot my pass" option for most as seasons are so widespread and anyone connecting from rail will already have a through ticket.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
However, the technology has moved on markedly and we see this with m-tickets and TOTO (tap on, tap off) with daily or weekly caps. I see it in Bristol where the number of cash fares is a fraction of what it was.
It's not cash that's now the problem. It's slow processing of cards, where you have to have a chat with the driver THEN put the card on the machine - far, far slower than paying cash with exact change.
"TOTO" as you put it is the fix and needs implementing immediately, nationwide (such a shame it was not done with the rollout of Ticketer). Though app based ticketing helps, it needs to be designed so that people aren't holding the bus up faffing about with it as they inevitably will, thus any ticket purchased needs to be available via Apple/Google Pay and on the first screen on opening the app. But, with the exception of any parents who might put their card details into their child's app, all users of such apps have a debit card they could use instead as they've entered said debit card number into the app, so are the apps even needed now? Something needs doing for children who are too young to hold debit cards, but an app is probably not that thing anyway.
London has many ‘special needs’ that are usually met by large amounts of public money. In our provincial towns and cities, proper bus priority measures need to come first so that passengers and operators can see a real difference in journey times. After that, the operators will see it being worthwhile investing in faster boarding and dwell times, but they won’t do this beforehand as it will make such a small difference that no PVR saving can be made.
London has many ‘special needs’ that are usually met by large amounts of public money. In our provincial towns and cities, proper bus priority measures need to come first so that passengers and operators can see a real difference in journey times. After that, the operators will see it being worthwhile investing in faster boarding and dwell times, but they won’t do this beforehand as it will make such a small difference that no PVR saving can be made.
Were I a politician, I'd take the opposite view - optimise your for-profit operation, then we will consider spending public money on improving it further. Public money in our current framework makes operators lazy - this was very visible in those towns (e.g. Milton Keynes) where Councils used to tender an evening service on all routes so operators would never register anything after about 6pm commercially, as why not get the free money? When that subsidy went away, surprise surprise, commercial evening services appeared on routes where they had been viable all along.
Why would subsidy have anything to do with it? Does London use two doors for public satisfaction or to save themselves money? London Transport bought two door buses even in the 90s when they were running at low subsidy. If two door buses are more expensive overall, then they would convert to single door, especially now with its funding crisis.
There is a balance between what is operationally good for the operator and what is good for customer service and revenue.
You are right that dwell time needs minimising - and operators already encourage use of season tickets, apps, online sales, contactless payment etc. However a good proportion of customers still wish to interact with a human to buy their ticket and pay cash.
Another issue with smart tap on ticketing with automatic fare caps is that as well as a very expensive back office infrastructure you have to have a flat fare in place unless you also have a tap off requirement which complicates things, impacts on customer experience and possibly safety too. If you have a flat fare then inevitably short journeys will become expensive, unless like London you have a hefty taxpayer subsidy.
I'd agree with others that while reduced dwell time would have a benefit at busy times the much bigger issue is traffic congestion that has led to extra running time being added to schedules and increased PVR. Unfortunately this is a huge political battle - for example currently in Sheffield a green councillor has proposed that the bus lanes on two major routes into the city become all day bus lanes rather than just peak hours and all the businesses are screaming blue murder at having parking taken away from them.
There is a balance between what is operationally good for the operator and what is good for customer service and revenue.
You are right that dwell time needs minimising - and operators already encourage use of season tickets, apps, online sales, contactless payment etc. However a good proportion of customers still wish to interact with a human to buy their ticket and pay cash.
I think those people might change their mind if they visited somewhere like London and worked out that it could easily make their hour's journey into the big city ten minutes faster. Other than those who are riding the bus for the enjoyment of it, whose needs should not be considered in designing a public transport system.
Yes, it makes that much difference on long, busy urban routes.
It's not cash that's now the problem. It's slow processing of cards, where you have to have a chat with the driver THEN put the card on the machine - far, far slower than paying cash with exact change.
"TOTO" as you put it is the fix and needs implementing immediately, nationwide (such a shame it was not done with the rollout of Ticketer). Though app based ticketing helps, it needs to be designed so that people aren't holding the bus up faffing about with it as they inevitably will, thus any ticket purchased needs to be available via Apple/Google Pay and on the first screen on opening the app. But, with the exception of any parents who might put their card details into their child's app, all users of such apps have a debit card they could use instead as they've entered said debit card number into the app, so are the apps even needed now? Something needs doing for children who are too young to hold debit cards, but an app is probably not that thing anyway.
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I said I see very few cash sales. For clarification, I see very few card sales in Bristol. It really has moved to m-tickets in a big way; in the peaks (when dwell time is more important), you'd say 75% are simply scanning their phones.
The irony is, of course, that London has very slow journey times so not certain how much benefit they are actually deriving from their dwell time benefits.
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I said I see very few cash sales. For clarification, I see very few card sales in Bristol. It really has moved to m-tickets in a big way; in the peaks (when dwell time is more important), you'd say 75% are simply scanning their phones.
That's quite interesting - is it the large student/young people population we don't really have in Milton Keynes, perhaps? I'd say most here are either ENCTS, debit card or paper season ticket, but almost no cash as you say. Paying cash seems to be mostly a "Boomer" generational thing, and as those people drift into getting concessionary cards and free travel the need for acceptance gets tiny.
The irony is, of course, that London has very slow journey times so not certain how much benefit they are actually deriving from their dwell time benefits.
As someone who has used buses in London extensively across the changeover from mainly cash to no cash (including conductor operated RMs) the difference is considerable - in essence, Oyster/contactless has turned one person operated buses from much slower than Routemasters to about the same. Yes, congestion does slow things and priority is difficult to achieve due to the web of routes, but it's not either-or, it's cumulative - if a bus slowed in congestion keeps stopping for 30 seconds to a minute on non-congested sections of route, a lot of time is still lost.
If you add to that that London routes tend (because of that slowness) to have very high PVRs, it doesn't take much of a speed-up to lop one or even two vehicles out of a route, or at least (if they keep them) to considerably improve punctuality.
That's quite interesting - is it the large student/young people population we don't really have in Milton Keynes, perhaps? I'd say most here are either ENCTS, debit card or paper season ticket, but almost no cash as you say. Paying cash seems to be mostly a "Boomer" generational thing, and as those people drift into getting concessionary cards and free travel the need for acceptance gets tiny.
Clearly, a younger demographic is more likely to use a smartphone, and in the peaks, you tend to get fewer ENCTS for obvious reasons; can't use before 0900 and not wanting to be out too long/not miss Countdown! Those using a payment card or cash are invariably of two demographics - they are perhaps >40 but haven't gone for a smartphone or have a reluctance to use its functionality or just aren't used to using apps etc. Otherwise, they tend to be a poorer demographic where financial pressures means they struggle to pay up front for anything other than utilities and so it's a more hand-to-mouth existence.
If you add to that that London routes tend (because of that slowness) to have very high PVRs, it doesn't take much of a speed-up to lop one or even two vehicles out of a route, or at least (if they keep them) to considerably improve punctuality.
Were I a politician, I'd take the opposite view - optimise your for-profit operation, then we will consider spending public money on improving it further. Public money in our current framework makes operators lazy - this was very visible in those towns (e.g. Milton Keynes) where Councils used to tender an evening service on all routes so operators would never register anything after about 6pm commercially, as why not get the free money? When that subsidy went away, surprise surprise, commercial evening services appeared on routes where they had been viable all along.
Well, your first point leads to a ‘chicken-and-egg’ situation; the local authority won’t move until the operator does and vice versa, giving a convenient get-out clause for authorities that regard public transport as a d*mn nuisance.
Regarding subsidy making operators lazy - that doesn’t apply in London presumably, it just makes TfL lazy? I freely admit to having no knowledge about what Milton Keynes local authorities have in place for auditing the outcome of their tendering operations.
Conversely, come to Bristol, try the routes up and down Gloucester Road, or the 43, or the 48/49; all these will provide a richly immersive user experience of how traffic congestion gobbles up any marginal gains available from speedier boarding and dwell times. “Muh London” just won’t work here.
Why would subsidy have anything to do with it? Does London use two doors for public satisfaction or to save themselves money? London Transport bought two door buses even in the 90s when they were running at low subsidy. If two door buses are more expensive overall, then they would convert to single door, especially now with its funding crisis.
If subsidy matters then it needs to be transparent and accountable/regularly audited for outcomes. If it doesn’t matter until it does, then we get the current TfL flap.
I notice nobody has challenged this:
Quite simply, any marginal gains in dwell times are going to be dwarfed by losses to traffic congestion and I dare say most operators are well aware of this.
I hate how apps don't have the functionality to just buy a ticket from A to B (day tickets are probably cheaper of course if making more than 1 return trip but still), so you have to ask the driver for a ticket to B and they have to faff about on their machine to find the stop/fare
Tap on and off is the answer I suppose but has been poorly implemented, on Transdev in Harrogate for example the reader is past the driver so slightly awkward to tap on without the driver thinking you're after a free ride!
In London I step on a bus, scan my debit card on the reader which takes less than a second to validate and I sit down, again elsewhere buses now have contactless but the driver seemingly still has to press several buttons to activate the reader so you can scan your card!
I hate how apps don't have the functionality to just buy a ticket from A to B (day tickets are probably cheaper of course if making more than 1 return trip but still), so you have to ask the driver for a ticket to B and they have to faff about on their machine to find the stop/fare
Tap on and off is the answer I suppose but has been poorly implemented, on Transdev in Harrogate for example the reader is past the driver so slightly awkward to tap on without the driver thinking you're after a free ride!
In London I step on a bus, scan my debit card on the reader which takes less than a second to validate and I sit down, again elsewhere buses now have contactless but the driver seemingly still has to press several buttons to activate the reader so you can scan your card!
In a lot of places (outside the UK) you can easily buy a ticket from A to B on your phone as they have zonal fare systems. The traditional British stage based fares makes this a lot more complicated, and even more difficult when trying to buy a ticket from A to B when changing at C, whereas with a zonal fare system changing makes no difference. In Switzerland they have an app where you log in at the start of the journey and log out at the end. The optimal fare is worked out by checking your phone's location at regular intervals throughout your journey. It can work with changes of mode between train, bus, tram and boat and works nationwide.
In a lot of places (outside the UK) you can easily buy a ticket from A to B on your phone as they have zonal fare systems. The traditional British stage based fares makes this a lot more complicated
It really doesn't. Select route number/direction. Select boarding stop from a list of all stops on that route. Select alighting stop from a list of all stops after the previously selected one. Be shown fare. Click to pay. Get barcoded ticket on phone.
It is about as simple as you can possibly imagine compared with railway ticketing, and railway tickets are sold via apps.
It really doesn't. Select route number/direction. Select boarding stop from a list of all stops on that route. Select alighting stop from a list of all stops after the previously selected one. Be shown fare. Click to pay. Get barcoded ticket on phone.
It is about as simple as you can possibly imagine compared with railway ticketing, and railway tickets are sold via apps.
In London I step on a bus, scan my debit card on the reader which takes less than a second to validate and I sit down, again elsewhere buses now have contactless but the driver seemingly still has to press several buttons to activate the reader so you can scan your card!
Not only that, but if you board and put your card on the reader, this messes things up and you have to remove it and the driver has to reset things and set up the destination before it will work.
This is not an example of frictionless user interface design. Even if you stuck with telling the driver your destination, things would be quicker if you could simplify the interaction in that way.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
These tend to be written on stops these days so aren't the mystery they once were. But yes, a map popping up when you select one would help (this isn't hard, bustimes.org does it!)
I agree simplified fares work better in many ways and fully support them (most towns could deal happily with three or four levels, as Milton Keynes has had for yonks - short trip, long trip and cross city trip and a separate one for intra-centre trips), but saying that traditional stages don't work for mobile ticketing is just an excuse in my book.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You have occasional platform-train interface issues but that doesn't result in single-door operation on the railway. Some risks are necessary. But such accidents aren't as likely as they once were, as rather than a low quality wing mirror you can now have several cameras covering the door and showing a very clear view to the driver on a monitor. Crikey, 12-car DOO train drivers manage to check 24 sets of doors aren't obstructed, a bus driver can surely manage two, one of which is right in front of them. Not only that, but they do so using camera views which are often small and only of outside the train - because a bus has only one centre door, you can give the driver several views of it, e.g. along the bodyside, out from the door (to see if someone is moving towards it) and inside (to see if someone is about to alight).
To some extent yes, though TfL will have other legislative controls around it that a commercial bus company doesn't. Whether those are effective or not is really one for another thread.
Very little in my experience, based on correspondence with them about issues with tendered routes in the past (stuff like serious early running of last buses and wilful missing out of estates on a sustained, repeated basis) and a friend who worked for them. Not many tendered routes now, they have signed most of them over to MK Connect, an excellent case-study on why many-to-many demand-responsive transport is ineffective in a large, distributed town.
Conversely, come to Bristol, try the routes up and down Gloucester Road, or the 43, or the 48/49; all these will provide a richly immersive user experience of how traffic congestion gobbles up any marginal gains available from speedier boarding and dwell times. “Muh London” just won’t work here.
I very much doubt that congestion is more serious in Bristol than central London, though I accept it might be bad. But your point is a bit like me saying "I've just had a chocolate bar, so I won't bother going for a run this evening as I've already done bad". Clearly it's best not to have a chocolate bar and to go for a run, i.e. to have effective bus priority and speed up boarding/payment/alighting. However, it's better to have a chocolate bar and go for a run than to have a chocolate bar and not go for a run.
That is, congestion may dwarf the effects of slow boarding, but it won't offset them. That is, if the bus was going to lose 10 minutes by moving slowly in a queue, it still will lose 10 minutes in a queue, regardless of whether you save 2 minutes at a busy stop. Two minutes saved is two minutes saved.
No commercial bus company cares about dwell times, as if they did they would be moving more ticketing off bus in a manner that speeds things up, introducing tap on/off contactless and ordering buses with rear exit doors. They are mostly not doing any of those things, and as such we can conclude they are quite happy with PVRs* being higher than necessary and the passenger service being slower than it could be.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
