TfGM Bus franchising

[TheGrandWazoo]

Agreed.

The people you want to survey are car drivers*, and the question being "why don't you go by public transport"?

Very commonly you'll get "I have to get two buses and pay twice and it takes ages because I have to wait half an hour between them" and similar, at least once you've weeded out "it smells of wee"** and such.

* I'd say "and cyclists", but as cycling is to be encouraged over even bus travel this is not a valid target market.
** Not wee, but damp. The fix is pressure ventilation as used in London, or full aircon (both of which also mitigate COVID). But that costs money...

Sorry but that isn't what non bus users commonly say.

What they actually say is contained in this handy study from Scotland and, aside from mentions of the trials of exact fares, you can probably see the themes as universal https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream...ing Why Some People do not use buses_2010.pdf

• Bad driving behaviour and poor driver attitudes
• Concerns about other passengers committing anti-social or criminal behaviour, as well as more general concerns about other people’s behaviour causing annoyance or discomfort
• Fears about the physical condition of buses making them unsafe, unreliable or inaccessible (for participants with mobility problems), as well as concerns about cleanliness and comfort on board
• Concerns about personal safety, comfort and the adequacy of information at bus stops
• The perceived length of bus journeys, as well as the appropriateness of timetables for the journeys participants needed to make
• A belief that buses cannot be relied on to stick to their timetables
• A perceived lack of direct and/or appropriate routes, as well as concerns about routes travelling through ‘undesirable’ areas
• A belief that fares are too high, as well as complaints about the inconvenience of having to find exact change.

Personal safety is a major issue but the other main concerns are about the reliability of bus services (i.e. can the timetable be relied upon) and the length of journeys and the fact that journeys can require multi-leg journeys. Of course, there will be the clarion call of "well, if there wasn't a cost issue, people would cheerfully change buses or between modes" but that's not borne out by this study. It's the directness - the time factor from door to door - that is continually referenced. If anything, some posters on this forum are of the opinion that there's too many direct links, not too few, and that would rationalise these out of existence.

What needs to happen is that buses need to have the playing field levelled to an extent. How can a bus compete when between Farnworth and Bolton, there's an almost absence of any bus priority, and that ain't gonna change if the bus is lilac, blue or yellow? And the ability to drive your car right through the centre of Bolton.

 

[HSTEd]

• The perceived length of bus journeys, as well as the appropriateness of timetables for the journeys participants needed to make
• A belief that buses cannot be relied on to stick to their timetables
• A perceived lack of direct and/or appropriate routes, as well as concerns about routes travelling through ‘undesirable’ areas

Well our problem is that "direct routes" and journey lengths are to, a certain extent, in opposition.

Since our enemy is the car, peple are not really going to be willing to plan their entire life around the bus timetable, so we have to adjust the journey time for the average (or even worst case) value that accrues from someone arriving at the bus stop at a random time.

So more buses going more directions necessarily reduces our bus frequency and leads to problems of longer journey times as a result.

We also make all buses run all-stops to their destination, which makes longer journeys painfully slow - even on Oxford Road buses regularly spend more time stopped than moving. Whereas if we emphasised changing buses this would be less of an issue.

We also have problems where over-adherance to timetables makes the service less attractive.

For example the 111 bus northbound on Oxford Road, it regularly waits several minutes at the MRI because its running ahead of schedule, and is overtaken by several buses going to exactly the same destination by the same route - which does nothing for practical usability but renders the bus less attractive.


I do think such a change would have to be based around new infrastructure - I've come to the conclusion that some very high usage bus stations should be rebuilt along "metro" lines or something from South America.
Probably including ticket gates to partially relieve the bus driver of the reponsibility of checking tickets which is a major reason things slow to a crawl.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well our problem is that "direct routes" and journey lengths are to, a certain extent, in opposition.

Since our enemy is the car, peple are not really going to be willing to plan their entire life around the bus timetable, so we have to adjust the journey time for the average (or even worst case) value that accrues from someone arriving at the bus stop at a random time.

I don't think this is quite true. If people know the bus times then they won't turn up at random. The question to deal with is whether the times offered suit their purposes. Once you get to 4 buses per hour it's very likely they will, below that there's a fair chance they won't.

We also make all buses run all-stops to their destination, which makes longer journeys painfully slow - even on Oxford Road buses regularly spend more time stopped than moving. Whereas if we emphasised changing buses this would be less of an issue.

What would also reduce the issue would be switching to touch-in touch-out contactless (or flat fare with just touch-in), plus the use of dual door in places which have cross-city routes where you will have both boarding and alighting at a considerable number of the same stops. Nothing at all has been done since the introduction of one person operated buses in the UK to attempt to reduce dwell times at stops - contactless is here, which is great, but it retains the typical slow "have a chat with the driver then pay" format of cash. It's very noticeable just how much quicker London operation is than the rest of the country. This is costing bus operators a fortune in increased PVRs yet inexplicably most don't seem in the remotest bit interested in fixing it.

I half wonder if they feel that the amount of slow running they are responsible for by having archaic payment methods might damage the rationale of their demands for bus lanes etc (which are also needed)?

We also have problems where over-adherance to timetables makes the service less attractive.

For example the 111 bus northbound on Oxford Road, it regularly waits several minutes at the MRI because its running ahead of schedule, and is overtaken by several buses going to exactly the same destination by the same route - which does nothing for practical usability but renders the bus less attractive.

This scenario is relatively rare and applies really only to very heavily-bussed corridors like Oxford Road with a bus every two minutes or so. You don't have to drop the frequency much for it to be a problem - a missed bus on a 10 minute frequency could still easily result in a missed hourly train.

The only way I'd support early running in this context is if the bus ran set-down only into Manchester, or at least the timetable data said that so nobody would plan to use it in that way.

I do think such a change would have to be based around new infrastructure - I've come to the conclusion that some very high usage bus stations should be rebuilt along "metro" lines or something from South America.
Probably including ticket gates to partially relieve the bus driver of the reponsibility of checking tickets which is a major reason things slow to a crawl.

As noted above, London's approach to ticketing means things move very quickly. Except the few unfamiliar with the system, the narrow aisle is more of a bottleneck than tapping in. This has to be the way to go and would speed up busy routes massively.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think this is quite true. If people know the bus times then they won't turn up at random. The question to deal with is whether the times offered suit their purposes. Once you get to 4 buses per hour it's very likely they will, below that there's a fair chance they won't.

Do we really expect to get much traffic and thus revenue from bus services that are less frequently than four per hour?
Outside edge cases I'm not sure they are going to be more than a rounding error on total traffic.

What would also reduce the issue would be switching to touch-in touch-out contactless (or flat fare with just touch-in), plus the use of dual door in places which have cross-city routes where you will have both boarding and alighting at a considerable number of the same stops.

Well dual door is going to inevitably lead to a significant increase in bus revenue loss to ticketless travel.

The current private operators are clearly not willing to tolerate this.

Nothing at all has been done since the introduction of one person operated buses in the UK to attempt to reduce dwell times at stops - contactless is here, which is great, but it retains the typical slow "have a chat with the driver then pay" format of cash. It's very noticeable just how much quicker London operation is than the rest of the country. This is costing bus operators a fortune in increased PVRs yet inexplicably most don't seem in the remotest bit interested in fixing it.

I half wonder if they feel that the amount of slow running they are responsible for by having archaic payment methods might damage the rationale of their demands for bus lanes etc (which are also needed)?

Well then you end up trading cost of operating more buses against the cost of a huge fleet of ticket vending machines?
I can see why operators would not want to take on that cost that could easily end up greater than the cost of the buses saved.

 

[Goldfish62]

Of course, if you look at the other main operators in Manchester, they are nowhere near that figure. Perhaps it's a reflection that Stagecoach are ruthlessly efficient at managing their business.

Looking from Burnham and TfGM's viewpoint, imagine the improvements that could be made to Stagecoach's network if it accepted a lower profit margin, eg 5%. I imagine in practice much of the current high profit margin effectively provides investment in poorer performing OpCos elsewhere, but then that means that's investment that's being taken out of GM, which is the bone of contention.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well dual door is going to inevitably lead to a significant increase in bus revenue loss to ticketless travel.

The current private operators are clearly not willing to tolerate this.

I would take the alternative view that the current private operators are simply risk averse. I don't see huge numbers of people sneaking onto London buses at the rear doors, and when they do the driver normally notices, stops the engine and waits for other passengers to remove them. It's almost like there's a force field on the rear door.

But what makes an even greater impact is slow ticketing. Contactless is the only way.

Well then you end up trading cost of operating more buses against the cost of a huge fleet of ticket vending machines?

Ticket vending machines? What for?

Contactless (either payment card or free pass) is now the majority method of payment for bus travel. What I'm suggesting is that that needs to be London-style contactless where it has no perceivable impact on boarding speed - people simply tap as they walk past the machine without breaking stride. Tapping out (if you don't you'd be charged the route's maximum fare) deals with staged fares.

That leaves a very small number of people still paying cash, which if it's exact fare (good for driver safety as a closed box can be used) will not slow things down substantially.

 

[HSTEd]

Ticket vending machines? What for?

Contactless is now the majority method of payment for bus travel. What I'm suggesting is that that needs to be London-style contactless where it has no perceivable impact on boarding speed - people simply tap as they walk past the machine without breaking stride. Tapping out (if you don't you'd be charged the route's maximum fare) deals with staged fares.

London didn't just decide that cash fares were not welcome one day.

They went through an entire multi year process involving a huge fleet of cash machines in the transition.

If you try to skip that and say that no cash is permitted immediately this will not go down well.

And the contactless system available on Stagecoach Manchester buses does have a noticeable delay on it....

 

[Bletchleyite]

London didn't just decide that cash fares were not welcome one day.

They went through an entire multi year process involving a huge fleet of cash machines in the transition.

If you try to skip that and say that no cash is permitted immediately this will not go down well.

Almost nobody now wants to pay cash bus fares. As such, if you deal with the majority (contactless and passholders) those few remaining don't make a significant difference.

The problem now is that contactless and pass transactions are not really any quicker than cash ones, because they are handled like cash ones rather than using the features of contactless to speed things up, i.e. tap as you walk past.

You can further encourage people to switch by offering a small discount, say 10p. Arriva MK appears to do this, but doesn't publicise it, which is bizarre!

 

[Goldfish62]

It was kicked off in 2019 after the 2017 Bus Services Act. IIRC, the initial statements referred to three areas/procurement tranches but with multiple tranches in those areas so that it didn't disadvantage smaller operators.

Rotala knew full well from the outset that TfGM's preference was going to be for area tendering, not individual route based. This was made clear from the outset when work started on the project back in 2015. TfGM by the way had considerable input the drafting of the Bus Services Act. At least Stagecoach has been vociferously consistent in their opposition.

 

[HSTEd]

Almost nobody now wants to pay cash bus fares. As such, if you deal with the majority (contactless and passholders) those few remaining don't make a significant difference.

That won't stop the negative publicity with photogenic person number six who can't get the bus they need to do x y and z. The political capital cost is substantial and can't be ignored.

The problem now is that contactless and pass transactions are not really any quicker than cash ones, because they are handled like cash ones rather than using the features of contactless to speed things up, i.e. tap as you walk past.

Even with bus passes the ticket process still reduces the speed of loading, albeit less than with the cash or cash equivalent fare purchases.

And this is with the artificially constricted loading speeds achievable with double decks.
If we had bendies on corridors like Oxford Road it would be even more noticeable.

 

[Goldfish62]

Well dual door is going to inevitably lead to a significant increase in bus revenue loss to ticketless travel.

The current private operators are clearly not willing to tolerate this.

I'm not sure where you get the notion that dual door leads to significant revenue loss. In all my years' involvement in London's bus operation this has never been a feature. Maybe you're confusing it with open boarding, which does incur revenue loss.

Reasons why operators don't like dual operation even on routes where it may be beneficial include that the vehicles are more expensive, the additional weight results in a lower passenger capacity, the wheelchair ramp needs to be in the centre door and thus automated, and the limited scope for cascading or selling without conversion to single door. Safety as a stated reason for mass conversion to single door buses in the 70s really doesn't feature these days with sensitive door edges and CCTV monitoring.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That won't stop the negative publicity with photogenic person number six who can't get the bus they need to do x y and z. The political capital cost is substantial and can't be ignored.

I am not saying cash should cease to be accepted - is that clear enough for you?

Even with bus passes the ticket process still reduces the speed of loading, albeit less than with the cash or cash equivalent fare purchases.

That is literally exactly what I am saying. Speed up the cards by making it tap-in tap-out, and the increasingly small number of cash payments won't matter.

Germany had this one years ago - cash was (and probably still is) universally accepted, but most people don't want to use it so the effect is minimal.

 

[dm1]

I am not saying cash should cease to be accepted - is that clear enough for you?



That is literally exactly what I am saying. Speed up the cards by making it tap-in tap-out, and the increasingly small number of cash payments won't matter.

Germany had this one years ago - cash was (and probably still is) universally accepted, but most people don't want to use it so the effect is minimal.

You can probably get rid of most of the cash users on board as well by making paying by cash on the bus a premium option and offering options to buy a ticket using cash at kiosks etc.

The ultimate option as far as dwell times are concerned would be all door boarding. Yes that might lead to some fare loss and some subsidy, but you minimise that by having roving ticket inspectors and monthly/yearly passes and fines priced such that getting caught without a ticket isn't worth it. In a city the size of Manchester that model would work fairly well and maybe even better than a London model (which due to slightly slower boarding has higher PVRs and thus higher costs)

By doing that you remove the hassle of using a bus completely. That feeling of freedom is difficult to beat - you see a bus going where you need to go and get on it, no questions asked (90% of the time, when your ticket isn't checked). That makes bus travel much more attractive in and of itself, especially if changes are required.

 

[HSTEd]

You could have all door boarding at a relative handful of stops and make a big difference, and those stops could potentially have infrastructure to support this installed in the long term.

I hate to keep coming back to the Oxford Road corridor, but its the one I know best and its vicinity provides examples of many types of services.

But with Fallowfield redevelopment coming up, and the reconstruction of Picadilly Gardens, we could go full blown true-BRT with ticket gates and all that if we wanted.

Certainly at Picadilly Gardens I feel it should resemble a railway station more than anything.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Well our problem is that "direct routes" and journey lengths are to, a certain extent, in opposition.

Since our enemy is the car, peple are not really going to be willing to plan their entire life around the bus timetable, so we have to adjust the journey time for the average (or even worst case) value that accrues from someone arriving at the bus stop at a random time.

So more buses going more directions necessarily reduces our bus frequency and leads to problems of longer journey times as a result.

We also make all buses run all-stops to their destination, which makes longer journeys painfully slow - even on Oxford Road buses regularly spend more time stopped than moving. Whereas if we emphasised changing buses this would be less of an issue.

We also have problems where over-adherance to timetables makes the service less attractive.

For example the 111 bus northbound on Oxford Road, it regularly waits several minutes at the MRI because its running ahead of schedule, and is overtaken by several buses going to exactly the same destination by the same route - which does nothing for practical usability but renders the bus less attractive.

Over-adherence to timetables is a new one to me!

The issue of timekeeping and reliability is key to getting passengers to move modes. To highlight an example, look at the A56 from Ramsbottom into Bury via Walmersley. Now the prevailing view would be that people would be less likely to get the bus because they can't interchange readily in Bury onto another bus or the metrolink because of a cost penalty/lack of connectivity. Not withstanding that on that major arterial road into Bury, there's not a bit of bus priority. In fact, they even have part-time cycle lanes so that if you cycle along outside the peak, people are at liberty to legitimately park their car in the cycle lane forcing the cyclists out into the traffic (though appreciate it's off topic).

Imagine if you could change that so that a 25 min journey in peak is actually more like 20 mins and yet there's nothing to improve bus priority proposed AFAIK. What you do have is from the Bury council website that tells you where the bus lanes are and when they operate. It's rather paltry...

Bus lanes are located at:

• Manchester Road, Bury (alongside Redvales Playing Fields)
• Bolton Road, Bury (three sections)
• Rochdale Road, Bury
• Bury Old Road, Prestwich (two sections)
• Bury New Road, Prestwich/Whitefield

The bus lanes are in force from Monday to Friday, from 7am to 10am, and from 4pm to 7pm, except the Manchester Road bus lane which is in operation from 7am to 7pm. You can drive in a bus lane at off peak times and at weekends.

However, it's understandable that politicians won't upset the motorists when rags like the MEN print stuff like this - my boldening but not my CAPS:

An M.E.N. FOI found they snared more than 50,000 motorists last year - raking in a staggering £1.6m in fines for the council. Or £4,384 a DAY
They're meant to ease congestion, speed up bus journeys and cut pollution.

But bus lanes are also the bane of drivers' lives - and these ones alone have caught out 56,531 motorists between them in the 12 months to the end of August, according to a Freedom of Information request submitted by the M.E.N.

Here they are, listed by the cash they netted for the town hall.

Playing off people against the evil bus owners isn't changing the fundamental problem

Looking from Burnham and TfGM's viewpoint, imagine the improvements that could be made to Stagecoach's network if it accepted a lower profit margin, eg 5%. I imagine in practice much of the current high profit margin effectively provides investment in poorer performing OpCos elsewhere, but then that means that's investment that's being taken out of GM, which is the bone of contention.

That would be just over half the Stagecoach Manchester profits so about £7m. Put that against the cost of administration - it's about 1/6 of TfGMs current admin budget. It ain't big bucks in the scheme of things.

Rotala knew full well from the outset that TfGM's preference was going to be for area tendering, not individual route based. This was made clear from the outset when work started on the project back in 2015. TfGM by the way had considerable input the drafting of the Bus Services Act. At least Stagecoach has been vociferously consistent in their opposition.

Have you a source for this? I've had a look and can't find anything and can only recall the shock when the proposal came out that it would be large franchise areas largely based on depots that would be compulsorily purchased at market rates (though they subsequently removed that element)

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could have all door boarding at a relative handful of stops and make a big difference, and those stops could potentially have infrastructure to support this installed in the long term.

I hate to keep coming back to the Oxford Road corridor, but its the one I know best and its vicinity provides examples of many types of services.

But with Fallowfield redevelopment coming up, and the reconstruction of Picadilly Gardens, we could go full blown true-BRT with ticket gates and all that if we wanted.

Certainly at Picadilly Gardens I feel it should resemble a railway station more than anything.

Oxford Road is atypical and really needs a tram putting down it. However, there is a precedent for tram-style bus operation (artics with all-door boarding) on a very similar route in Hamburg.

Most users of buses on that route use passes or would use contactless, so there probably isn't any need for specific off-bus ticketing, just ticket inspection on board rather than by the driver.

 

[Goldfish62]

Have you a source for this? I've had a look and can't find anything and can only recall the shock when the proposal came out that it would be large franchise areas largely based on depots that would be compulsorily purchased at market rates (though they subsequently removed that element)

Yes thanks. I had some involvement way back in 2015 when the Bus Reform project first kicked off. I hasten to add I haven't had any involvement for the past nearly six years and I'm glad I haven't! The experienced people with bus operational backgrounds, of which there are several at TfGM, have seemingly been side-lined by a whole army of management consultants.

 

[johncrossley]

London didn't just decide that cash fares were not welcome one day.

They went through an entire multi year process involving a huge fleet of cash machines in the transition.

If you try to skip that and say that no cash is permitted immediately this will not go down well.

And the contactless system available on Stagecoach Manchester buses does have a noticeable delay on it....

Roadside ticket machines were only used on selected routes. When TfL did eventually scrap cash, the vast majority of routes went from being able to pay the driver one day to cashless the next. That was a long time ago, 2014, and since then cash usage has plummeted and contactless has become ubiquitous. You would have thought scrapping cash would be easier in Manchester than London. Tourists were the main worry when London when cashless (although it wasn't really an issue as it turned out) and Manchester obviously has fewer of those.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Roadside ticket machines were only used on selected routes. When TfL did eventually scrap cash, the vast majority of routes went from being able to pay the driver one day to cashless the next. That was a long time ago, 2014, and since then cash usage has plummeted and contactless has become ubiquitous. You would have thought scrapping cash would be easier in Manchester than London. Tourists were the main worry when London when cashless (although it wasn't really an issue as it turned out) and Manchester obviously has fewer of those.

Free passes also make a huge difference. It's typically older people and people with disabilities who prefer cash (as they are the majority of people on a low, fixed income), and they all travel free anyway.

But as I said I wasn't pushing for cash abolition, rather speeding up card processing so it is a tap walking past, not a conversation. That takes your processing time down from 10 seconds per passenger to basically zero. If you say a decker has a capacity of about 70 seated, it's full and each seat only used once, that's nearly twelve minutes that basically serve no purpose whatsoever.

Short periods of time done often add up. Remember the Merseyrail example? Simply adding hustle alarms (lengthening dispatch by several seconds) required two minutes to be added to Ormskirk-Liverpool timings to remain punctual.

 

[johncrossley]

We also have problems where over-adherance to timetables makes the service less attractive.

For example the 111 bus northbound on Oxford Road, it regularly waits several minutes at the MRI because its running ahead of schedule, and is overtaken by several buses going to exactly the same destination by the same route - which does nothing for practical usability but renders the bus less attractive.

The TfL mode of operation involves keeping buses at even intervals apart, rather than sticking to a fixed timetable. Sometimes there is a recorded announcement saying that the bus will wait to regulate the service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The TfL mode of operation involves keeping buses at even intervals apart, rather than sticking to a fixed timetable. Sometimes there is a recorded announcement saying that the bus will wait to regulate the service.

This depends on the frequency of the route - above about every 10 minutes and they do, below that and they operate a timetable.

In Manchester you couldn't really do that for Oxford Road southbound at least because it isn't one high-frequency route - it's a load of routes together along the same road, which are actually not all high frequency once they branch off, so a timetable has to be operated. You'd have to reduce the number of routes radically to make it operable in the TfL manner. You could do it northbound, but only to a point because you need the buses to be able to go back south per the timetable - essentially you could run early but not late.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Yes thanks. I had some involvement way back in 2015 when the Bus Reform project first kicked off. I hasten to add I haven't had any involvement for the past nearly six years and I'm glad I haven't! The experienced people with bus operational backgrounds, of which there are several at TfGM, have seemingly been side-lined by a whole army of management consultants.

Things certainly changed as both Rotala and Go Ahead were under the impression that there would be packages (as opposed to single routes perhaps) but not the wholesale removal of business. Otherwise GA wouldn't have paid £11m for a loss making operation.

Free passes also make a huge difference. It's typically older people and people with disabilities who prefer cash (as they are the majority of people on a low, fixed income), and they all travel free anyway.

But as I said I wasn't pushing for cash abolition, rather speeding up card processing so it is a tap walking past, not a conversation.

That's largely happening anyway as cash is disappearing and the move to pre-paid tickets. Reducing dwell times IS a real definite saving but bus priority is sadly lacking.

As for a tram up Oxford Road...just using the current footprint better might be a start. The cycle lanes are overly complex and I say that as a cyclist, and as for the buses...

The TfL mode of operation involves keeping buses at even intervals apart, rather than sticking to a fixed timetable. Sometimes there is a recorded announcement saying that the bus will wait to regulate the service.

And, of course, the enforced de-camps as vehicles are removed from the service pattern. Last time it happened to me, it was in the (dark) heart of Deptford on the 188

 

[johncrossley]

This depends on the frequency of the route - above about every 10 minutes and they do, below that and they operate a timetable.

Yes, the cut off is every 12 minutes. Any worse than that then they use a timetable.

And, of course, the enforced de-camps as vehicles are removed from the service pattern. Last time it happened to me, it was in the (dark) heart of Deptford on the 188

Does that mean you don't approve of that style of operation?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's largely happening anyway as cash is disappearing and the move to pre-paid tickets

True, but there still remains the problem that a contactless transaction using Ticketer takes pretty much as long as a cash transaction. This really needs changing to tap-on, tap-off instead (you could ensure people tap off with payment cards by simply charging the highest fare for the route if you don't tap off, which would allow speedier deboarding of large numbers at the terminus because there'd be no need to tap off there).

Even a minor design change would help. With Ticketer, if you do what is natural and put the card on the reader immediately you board, there's a delay while you take it back off again and the driver rings up the fare. This costs 2-3 seconds each time it happens, and would be fixed if Ticketer would simply fix their software to ignore the card until the fare is rung up. This fits into the similar "poor design" bracket as the Wayfarer ticket machines where if people pull the ticket they pull two foot off the roll.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This depends on the frequency of the route - above about every 10 minutes and they do, below that and they operate a timetable.

Of which a number have just been reduced viz 7, 9, 11, 16, 27, 30 and 148.

Yes, the cut off is every 12 minutes. Any worse than that then they use a timetable.



Does that mean you don't approve of that style of operation?

Yeah - I loved being turfed off in a desolate part of Deptford. Who wouldn't!

 

[johncrossley]

True, but there still remains the problem that a contactless transaction using Ticketer takes pretty much as long as a cash transaction. This really needs changing to tap-on, tap-off instead (you could ensure people tap off with payment cards by simply charging the highest fare for the route if you don't tap off, which would allow speedier deboarding of large numbers at the terminus because there'd be no need to tap off there).

A few companies are already doing this. So there's no real excuse why the rest aren't offering this facility.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

True, but there still remains the problem that a contactless transaction using Ticketer takes pretty much as long as a cash transaction. This really needs changing to tap-on, tap-off instead (you could ensure people tap off with payment cards by simply charging the highest fare for the route if you don't tap off, which would allow speedier deboarding of large numbers at the terminus because there'd be no need to tap off there).

Even a minor design change would help. With Ticketer, if you do what is natural and put the card on the reader immediately you board, there's a delay while you take it back off again and the driver rings up the fare. This costs 2-3 seconds each time it happens, and would be fixed if Ticketer would simply fix their software to ignore the card until the fare is rung up. This fits into the similar "poor design" bracket as the Wayfarer ticket machines where if people pull the ticket they pull two foot off the roll.

Isn't this where tap and cap comes in?

 

[johncrossley]

Yeah - I loved being turfed off in a desolate part of Deptford. Who wouldn't!

But surely the upside outweighs the downside? If they went back to a traditional timetable, you are more likely to have long waits for the bus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A few companies are already doing this. So there's no real excuse why the rest aren't offering this facility.

Agreed.

Isn't this where tap and cap comes in?

Is that what TfGM are planning? I hope so.

 

[johncrossley]

Of which a number have just been reduced viz 7, 9, 11, 16, 27, 30 and 148.

I don't think any of those have been reduced to worse than every 12 minutes, so they all still operate using the 'even service' philosophy.