On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:19:37 +0000, Dave A wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

[snip]
I was pondering today that the deregulated approach to service provision
in the evenings just seems so at odds with what the public want. Shops
are open late a lot of the time, people want to eat out and drink and
enjoy entertainment facilities more and more and yet there are scant
ways for them to get around. It's interesting to contrast that with
London (and yes we've got huge budgets to support our network) where
peak service levels run through to about 20.00 and there is broadly a
good service on almost all routes right through to close of traffic.
It's no wonder that London is booming and the place is busy all the time
- the transport system is working to support all that economic activity
which in turn results in higher tax revenues to pay for the subsidy to
the network. It just struck me that seems such a virtuous circle to be
in.

Even the smaller picture - just the bus system - gets stuck into a
virtuous circle, as increased bus frequencies result in more passengers,
which in turn justifies a more frequent service and so on. I have heard
people moan about lots of empty buses running around, but that's not my
experience, and across the network, per-bus occupancy levels have been
rising over the last decade in London, whereas other met areas have seen
them fall.

There are plenty of people who moan about "empty" buses but in reality
it is very rare for a bus to be completely empty and to be running on
time. As you say average occupancy has been rising for years which helps
broadly improve the viability of each route (I know it's more complex
than that in reality).

The various indicators comparing buses in met areas, in London, and in
the countryside are interesting to follow. Obviously in London patronage
has been rising quickly, the buses are getting fuller, and despite the
expense, both the National Audit Office and the London Assembly noted
that good value for money had been achieved. In rural areas, patronage
has inevitably been falling, but given that rural public transport is
unlikely to ever compete with the car except for particular segments of
the market, costs have been reined in reasonably well, with some quite
useful and even innovative services being provided in places.

I'd forgotten about the NAO, London Assembly and IIRC Transport Select
Committee have all commented favourably on London's approach. That's
probably a world record given the range of political opinion.

I saw this article today

http://www.busandcoach.com/featureStory.aspx?id=1230

about Blazefield Holdings. I found it very interesting - particularly
comments about passengers liking more leg room (yes I do!) and also the
fact they try hard to keep ahead of demand so that buses are not overly
full as passengers dislike them (also correct IMO). If only most bus
companies would adopt the stance of Blazefield and actually get on and
do a decent job and take some risks. Much of the criticism would
probably go and London's special status would be much harder to defend.

On the other hand, most met areas just seem to be a bus disaster zone.
Only select smaller places seem to manage bus services well. I wonder if
network effects are relevant - in small cities (and large towns),
individual routes serve people quite well (i.e. taking them to and from
the centre), whereas in larger places where people are more in need of a
network rather than a particular route, the attractiveness of the
service falls apart thanks to poor information, poor ticketing
arrangements and the like.

Except in the very simplest of places, where one or two routes might
suffice, then I believe a network is required and it services should
demonstrably function as a network. It is not beyond the wit of
professional bus companies to create timetables and ticketing that would
support an easy to use local network. Technology such as GPS can help
ensure the actual service performance matches the theory of the
timetables. Non of this is hugely expensive when put against the
potential gain for the company's profitability and for passengers.

I particularly despair about the Met Counties as they are all in the
stranglehold grip of big groups who will just bully local authorities if
they attempt to regulate their networks. Worse they have no apparent
interest in running decent networks - they just want basic corridors
where they can make the most money and keep the competition away. Coming
from Tyne and Wear I know what integrated transport can be like - we
have nothing in this country (including London) that even gets close to
what that system had.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!