Have Thames Travel said they're running older buses? The rules about bus exhausts in Oxford will still have to be obeyed whoever runs the service.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Oxford rationalisation - but keeping single company tickets!
- Thread starter johncrossley
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
johncrossley
Established Member
"Commercial advantage" is irrelevant in this Bus Back Better era where buses rely on subsidy, including former "commercial" services.
I said earlier, ticket confusion is detrimental to overall passenger usage. If it could be proved that single company tickets improve patronage then fair enough. If that is the case, then it should be rolled out to areas where there is only one company. Either by divesting part of the existing operation (like First in Manchester) or by creating new brands.
But it is not like that. Yes buses may be reliant on more subsidy, but the revenue risk is still to be with the bus companies, therefore the more revenue they can take on their bus the better it is for them. Hence the desire to retain single company ticketing products.
johncrossley
Established Member
Do single company tickets improve overall public transport patronage?
Exactly and with the multi-operator SmartZone ticket being only 40/50p dearer than the single operator offerings Oxford is ahead of the game.
Yes, because they offer some people cheaper fares and encourage operators to up their game to retain their 'own' passengers as much as possible.
I doubt it reduces overall public transport usage.
johncrossley
Established Member
Does that mean monopoly providers should be broken up?
Is there any evidence that this 'ticket confusion' actually exists in this case? It's certainly easy to prove the opposite is true, that if you increases the price of all tickets to one level to remove this 'confusion' (i.e. remove single, return and operator rover tickets and just had the easy to remember all operator rover) then people would stop using the buses.
The rail industry has a confusing array of different ticket offers but people still use trains, the airline industry changes prices every few minutes but people still use planes and Tesco has different prices for similar things depending on the name of the range or the type of store you buy it from however people still buy from Tesco.
If you're going to pose a question like that, it also needs to have a suitable measuring metric. How would you determine specifically whether a customer is taking public transport because of the availability of a specific ticket, rather than because they generally need to? I could just as easily ask you to prove that multi-operator day tickets improve patronage.
You are wedded to the idea that only multi-company tickets should be available, because it's what "people" want (without any evidence to back up your statements, let alone from non-bus-users). By extension, that would appear to prohibit operators from offering anything else - be that a single company day ticket, a route-specific weekly over a major flow or any special offer (such as a reduced price evening fare). How would this benefit, say, a situation where two companies operate over a route during the day, but only one provides early morning and late evening journeys when our hypothetical traveller only has one option, thus has no need for a hypothetical multi-operator ticket?
What about areas where almost all services are provided by a major operator, and only a few tendered services are run by another company? Will the majority of passengers need a multi-operator ticket?
Would you expect to be able to use your Tesco Clubcard points in the neighbouring Sainsbury's because they are all providing a "supermarket service"?
Oxford may be good bus territory, but that is largely because of the operators, not necessarily the councils, who have made life increasingly difficult for operators to serve central Oxford. The current timetables, worked out under a quality partnership, were already designed to reduce the number of buses in central Oxford, and were shortly thereafter followed by an abdication of any public transport publishing by the County and City Councils (The County Council's "journey planning" link takes you to Google maps) and an axing of all, or almost all, subsidy for tendered services; hence the large number of 'community' operations almost invisible to the visiting public.
Fundamentally, though, ticketing is a very minor element of these changes. The greater elements are the withdrawal from certain corridors of long-standing operators, and particularly the withdrawal of Whites Coaches from the Didcot town services. This small operator has gradually stepped back from provision over the years, and these are its last regular (It appears to retain a public school service, the 145C, and private contracts) public services - using a yellow vehicle, last time I saw them, admittedly some years ago!
johncrossley
Established Member
I'm not the only one to cite ticket confusion as a problem. It is one of the many reasons that people support franchising. How do you know there would be an overall price rise if there is only a single range of tickets? If having a single range of tickets is undesirable, then you should prefer existing monopoly providers to be broken up.
Why? There are relatively few places where any significant amounts of genuine on the road competition actually takes place. But where it does, I see no reason to try and stifle fares promotions (which is what single operator tickets effectively are).
There are many more issues affecting overall public transport usage that need addressing before worrying about single operator tickets. From the ticketing point of view, multi operator ticketing where none currently exists would be a really good starting place.
johncrossley
Established Member
The difference here is the consequence of people not using buses is people using cars. The whole point of public transport is to reduce pollution and congestion. If people use a different supermarket then it doesn't matter. They still need to get their food from somewhere. Whereas if people are put off buses due to fares, they have an alternative in the car.
Because in areas with only one operator, there is only one range of tickets. Therefore you don't get the benefit of single company tickets.
Well either have franchising, with the good and bad that it will bring, or you are going to have to let bus companies have some commercial freedom. Removing their commercial freedom, whilst retaining the revenue risk is just not going to work. Government/Local Authorities are generally not keen at thus time on taking over this revenue risk.
So? I am not hung up on everywhere having exactly the same fares framework. I don't think that single company tickets offer sufficient advantages to disturb the current pattern of ownership or operation to expand their issue.. There are plenty more important fish to fry at the moment in the public transport industry before worrying about this detail.
Last edited:
No. The point of public transport is to provide a mass alternative to those who do not have a car, enough cars, or choose not to use it for the specific journey (or in some historical cases, are not permitted to have a car!). Pollution and congestion reduction are side benefits that have only recently gained traction, and have little to do with the last 120 years of public transport provision.
Then please cite some! If I ever used "people think/say/believe/suggest/claim" in a school essay to avoid doing my research and finding some specifics, my teachers used to write in red capital letters statements such as "Such as?", "Cite them!", or if feeling particularly wordy "Many people say many things!!!!!"
I presume you are still thinking of a suitable metric to determine whether availability or not of a specific ticket type increases or harms public transport usage.
johncrossley
Established Member
If that is the case then there is little or no point in making buses attractive, as they will only be used by those who have no choice.
@edwin_m and @Bletchleyite have regularly commented on single company tickets, for example on the TfGM franchising thread, including when I was a long time lurker before I joined this forum.
Falcon1200
Established Member
I have a choice of two routes between the family home and Oxford City centre, one OBC and one Stagecoach, so the Smartzone ticket is very handy, particularly when I arrive in Oxford in the afternoon, buy one to get home and use it the next day for a trip into town. I did however once buy a 3-day Smartzone only to be told by a Stagecoach driver that it was only valid on OBC services.
Wrong. As I said, "The point of public transport is to provide a mass alternative to those who do not have a car, enough cars, or choose not to use it for the specific journey". We should therefore seek to make it attractive to encourage non-users to make that choice. That encompasses much more than a hypothetical need for multi-operator tickets, or for such tickets to be no more expensive than single-operator tickets.
Remembering this is a thread on Oxford/shire, where cars are even less welcome than buses in parts of the city yet a significant part of people's lives in the county, and where there are a high number of people who choose to use the bus as their primary or secondary (after bike) form of transport, I imagine a greater encouragement would be improving rural links, and links from rural areas into urban centres, than worrying about a 50p excess on a multi-operator ticket.
Who are forum users, and thus presumably have some form of enthusiasm. At least one of whom is already a stated bus user in a town (or is it now a city?) with multiple operators. If they are already using it, by your own argument they don't need it made more attractive. Surely you should be quoting non-forum, non-public transport users? Perhaps a source from Oxford/shire, confused by Smartzone ticketing?
Moving back to my earlier point on the substance of the announcement as a whole, am I correct in thinking this "duplication" has existed on Kidlington and Rose Hill corridors unbroken since the days of Thames Transit/Harry Blundred's minibuses in the early 90s? How times have changed!
The point is that cheaper tickets could be provided for smaller areas rather than just for one operator. Those that just get their local bus service still save over buying the all-area one, but if 2 operators run past their house, they could catch all the buses into town for the price of the cheaper ticket. Those that go all over the county every day will get the more expensive one.
I was in Leicester a few weeks ago - I was on a road with 3 different operators, each running every 15 minutes. The only way to get a multi-operator ticket was to get a much more expensive one that covered a much wider area. 12 buses an hour competes with the car a lot better than choosing one of the sets of 4 buses an hour does.
It would also be good to introduce multi-operator tickets in areas that don't have them. It's possible to address both problems - they don't have to be competing (unless you want to give one of problems an even number and one an odd number).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The point we are all making is that this is an ill advised thing to want people to do, because it is competing over a tiny amount of travel demand. It is better to put effort into attracting in the far higher number of car passengers (as e.g. Transdev Yorkshire and Trent do) and that more requires quality, affordability and flexibility than spatting between operators.
Why is just about the only bus manager that gets this Alex Hornby? Why do the others prefer managed decline and spatting between operators over maybe 10% of the travel market while the other 90% drives?
Yes, this helps. In Merseyside it is reasonable too. In Greater Manchester it is outrageous.
Whether it is ill advised or not, the current framework with operators taking revenue risk requires the operators to have commercial freedom, otherwise it is not going to work. With this commercial freedom will come strategies to get passengers to ride on a particular company's buses. Government/Local Authorities are pretty reluctant to be taking on this revenue risk.
I am unsure of how much success the effort of attracting in far higher numbers of car passengers that Transdev Yorkshire or Trent may have had?. Are they more profitable than the Big5 operators as a result?
Not wishing to denigrate Alex Hornby in any way, but if an operator was to start competing on any of his flagship routes I am sure single operator ticketing would be in his armoury to maintain Transdev market share.
Whilst the quality of bus managers varies, they do have to operate in the legal and financial framework that is in place.
One thing which may be worth noting is that while the Oxford urban area has multi-operator ticketing, Oxfordshire county as a whole does not.
To an extent this is understandable - the networks of Oxford/Thames and Stagecoach don't really overlap, and most passengers only need one of the two. However, in some areas there will now be significant overlap - the Wantage rationalisations in particular will mean that part of the county is roughly half Stagecoach, half Thames. The lack of multi-operator ticketing also means journeys involving multiple operators are very expensive - for example Wantage to Swindon (where the local service across to Faringdon is Thames Travel but the flagship route is Stagecoach) or Abingdon to Bicester (or most other cross-Oxford journeys).
To an extent this is understandable - the networks of Oxford/Thames and Stagecoach don't really overlap, and most passengers only need one of the two. However, in some areas there will now be significant overlap - the Wantage rationalisations in particular will mean that part of the county is roughly half Stagecoach, half Thames. The lack of multi-operator ticketing also means journeys involving multiple operators are very expensive - for example Wantage to Swindon (where the local service across to Faringdon is Thames Travel but the flagship route is Stagecoach) or Abingdon to Bicester (or most other cross-Oxford journeys).
Exactly this. I suspect that multi operator ticketing is the exception in the shire counties. It is not so much multiple operators on the same route, but passenger journeys involving changes between multiple operators. Possibly the tap on-tap off back office being developed nationally will assist in getting over this barrier to use of public transport.
Doctor Fegg
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 1,843
Although I'm no fan of some of Oxfordshire County Council's actions, particularly the former Conservative administration's withdrawal of all bus subsidies, I don't see how you can say with a straight face that they've made it difficult for operators to serve central Oxford.
A bus can go almost anywhere in Oxford. It can go along Queen Street, where even bikes are banned, presumably on the basis that it hurts more if you get hit by a 10kg bike than a 12,000kg double-decker. It can go along the High, where a bus gate keeps out other through traffic. There are bus lanes on many of the arterial roads, and traffic lights to speed their passage. Buses are the mode of traffic afforded most privilege in Oxford. Compare with the cycle infrastructure, which is basically prehistoric when compared to many other British cities.
Indeed. Here in rural West Oxfordshire, Pulhams/Stagecoach through ticketing would make a massive difference. If you want to go from (say) Chipping Norton or Charlbury to Carterton or Eynsham, you have to rebook at Witney. Pulhams not taking cards doesn't help.
I always think there is a danger the more complicated you make the ticketing system, the more likely the general public who have the option will say its too confusing and go by car. Slightly off topic, but the last couple of times I've thought about using a train to go long distance, the TOCs make it so complicated to get the correct ticket, and then prosecute at the drop of a hat if you get it wrong, that I gave up and drove instead.
The multi operator bus ticket in Leicester, the Flexi ticket is £4.80.
This compares favourably to:
First Day at £4.40.
Centrebus Day at £4.40.
Arriva Leicester Z1* £4.30.
Flexi ticket is also valid on Stagecoach.
The price differential is not dissimilar from Oxford.
*I assume this is central Leicester without navigating the new Arriva website !
True, however, was there not at one point a plan to completely pedestrianize Queen Street that was only moved away from (to the current situation) when operators put a significant amount of resources into fighting it, saying how difficult it would be for them if they weren't given access, and a compromise was eventually reached where a number of routes were sent "around the block" (via Castle Street, etc.)?
Apologies if I've misremembered that; it was some years ago.
Yes, I believe it was implemented at one point and then had to be rolled back because of the number of passenger complaints. Before the present arrangement (to coordinate timetables) the council also had a plan that buses in the central area would be 'standee' type vehicles with people transferring to seated vehicles once outside of the central area.
Even where it does exist, it's poorly promoted. Oxfordshire's neighbour of Wiltshire has one of the better multi-operator tickets and it is actually promoted by some of the operators there - but drivers regularly comment on how rarely they see them!
Yes - it seems like West Oxfordshire is worst for that with Stagecoach running most of the radial trunk routes into Oxford but independents running the local connections (as well as Witney to Abingdon/Chippy). At least elsewhere in the county, the "local" operator and the "trunk" operator tends to be the same.
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1...rap-plans-pedestrianise-oxfords-queen-street/ is a story from the time. As Oxford is very lopsided, you need to be able to send buses that came in from the East back out that way. It used to be that pretty much everything did a loop round the block and used Queen Street, they have managed to reduce that somewhat (especially by sending many services to the Rail Station), but ultimately there needs to be somewhere to turn. Which one of the Colleges blocked as they have other ideas on how to use the land.
markymark2000
On Moderation
I'm struggling to see how anyone is coming off well from these changes unless the corridors are severely over bussed. Also not very good changes for Stagecoach who should lose 8 buses worth of work
Stagecoach:
2/2A - Up maybe 2-3 buses (peaks possibly extra but counteracted by the loss of the 34)
3/3A - down 3 buses
12/16 - down 5 buses
S8/S9 - PVR neutral
OBC:
2/2A/2B - down 6 buses
3/3A - up 3
5A - up 2
6 - up 1 (maybe unless they shrink the running time)
X1 - up 3
500 - down 3
Stagecoach:
2/2A - Up maybe 2-3 buses (peaks possibly extra but counteracted by the loss of the 34)
3/3A - down 3 buses
12/16 - down 5 buses
S8/S9 - PVR neutral
OBC:
2/2A/2B - down 6 buses
3/3A - up 3
5A - up 2
6 - up 1 (maybe unless they shrink the running time)
X1 - up 3
500 - down 3
Last edited:
- Status