On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:04:07 +0000, Dave A wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:06:21 +0000, Joyce Whitchurch
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

[much useful stuff snipped]

Thanks for that.

b) TfL requiring standard headways despite much extended running
times at the peak. Non of this moving from a bus every 30 minutes to one
every 42 minutes that you see in deregulated land.
Intriguing - that's not apparent to the passenger. The timetables at
stops just say cheerfully "every 10/12 minutes" or whatever, as though
the headways do in fact vary at peak times.

Hang on though -
LOGICAL FALLACY
- the headways can't be constant throughout the route if the running
times vary. They might be constant at one point but not at every timing
point.
DOES NOT COMPUTE
WHIRR
CRASH
BANG
REPLACE USER AND REBOOT

OK fair comment. Yes you get minor variations as running times build up
and down on the shoulders of the peak. My local route is x10 for most of
the day but varies between 7 and 12 minute intervals *at my stop* in the
shoulders. At the end of the route buses are arriving every 10 minutes.

TfL put in the extra resources for the longer running times *and*
maintain a 10 min headway on my route. I'd imagine in deregulated land
that it might be x10 off peak but x12 or so in the peaks. This, of
course, is bonkers because at peak times you want the capacity to be at
least as good as off peak and yet it isn't because they won't put the
extra buses on. And people wonder why buses are not used by a proportion
of the population?

The point about extra buses in the peaks is an interesting issue for
deregulated operators; as you say, extra vehicles are required to
maintain headways in the peaks, but this would then require purchasing
and maintaining extra vehicles solely for the peak service.

The result is that the marginal cost of operations to the deregulated
bus company (i.e. the cost for each additional passenger) in the peaks
is much higher than for the off-peak (where extra services can be run
without buying any extra buses, because there will always be some
"peak-only" vehicles sitting around) - which in turn means that
deregulated bus companies have a big incentive to increase off-peak
travel, but much less incentive to increase peak travel.

It perhaps seems odd then that evening services are so poor in
deregulated areas compared to London.

Not odd at all really. Many companies try to get away with a one shift
operation if they can - typically rural areas. When there is enough
business they will stretch to two shifts - this is very typical of many
medium sized or even some large towns. Only in exceptional circumstances
do you get anything like a proper service funded on a fully commercial
basis - bits of the big cities in the Met Counties and the standard list
of "deregulation success cities" fall in here. Any remaining evening or
late night operations in quieter areas have to be funded by local
authorities. It is all about minimising the basic cost of operation and
then minimising any risk to the core network and revenue base. Why would
an operator take a punt on running evening services if they need to
employ depot staff for longer and later and have another shift of
drivers and control staff for next to no money *in the short term*?
They aren't interested in taking some short term risk to try to grow the
overall market - why would a prospective passenger get a bus at 18.00 to
go to town if there is no bus to get them home at 23.00 after a night
out with friends? In London there's little reason to even consider that
scenario unless you happen to live on the W10!

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.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:04:07 +0000, Dave A wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:06:21 +0000, Joyce Whitchurch
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

[much useful stuff snipped]

Thanks for that.

b) TfL requiring standard headways despite much extended running
times at the peak. Non of this moving from a bus every 30 minutes to one
every 42 minutes that you see in deregulated land.
Intriguing - that's not apparent to the passenger. The timetables at
stops just say cheerfully "every 10/12 minutes" or whatever, as though
the headways do in fact vary at peak times.

Hang on though -
LOGICAL FALLACY
- the headways can't be constant throughout the route if the running
times vary. They might be constant at one point but not at every timing
point.
DOES NOT COMPUTE
WHIRR
CRASH
BANG
REPLACE USER AND REBOOT
OK fair comment. Yes you get minor variations as running times build up
and down on the shoulders of the peak. My local route is x10 for most of
the day but varies between 7 and 12 minute intervals *at my stop* in the
shoulders. At the end of the route buses are arriving every 10 minutes.

TfL put in the extra resources for the longer running times *and*
maintain a 10 min headway on my route. I'd imagine in deregulated land
that it might be x10 off peak but x12 or so in the peaks. This, of
course, is bonkers because at peak times you want the capacity to be at
least as good as off peak and yet it isn't because they won't put the
extra buses on. And people wonder why buses are not used by a proportion
of the population?
The point about extra buses in the peaks is an interesting issue for
deregulated operators; as you say, extra vehicles are required to
maintain headways in the peaks, but this would then require purchasing
and maintaining extra vehicles solely for the peak service.

The result is that the marginal cost of operations to the deregulated
bus company (i.e. the cost for each additional passenger) in the peaks
is much higher than for the off-peak (where extra services can be run
without buying any extra buses, because there will always be some
"peak-only" vehicles sitting around) - which in turn means that
deregulated bus companies have a big incentive to increase off-peak
travel, but much less incentive to increase peak travel.

It perhaps seems odd then that evening services are so poor in
deregulated areas compared to London.

Not odd at all really. Many companies try to get away with a one shift
operation if they can - typically rural areas. When there is enough
business they will stretch to two shifts - this is very typical of many
medium sized or even some large towns. Only in exceptional circumstances
do you get anything like a proper service funded on a fully commercial
basis - bits of the big cities in the Met Counties and the standard list
of "deregulation success cities" fall in here. Any remaining evening or
late night operations in quieter areas have to be funded by local
authorities. It is all about minimising the basic cost of operation and
then minimising any risk to the core network and revenue base. Why would
an operator take a punt on running evening services if they need to
employ depot staff for longer and later and have another shift of
drivers and control staff for next to no money *in the short term*?
They aren't interested in taking some short term risk to try to grow the
overall market - why would a prospective passenger get a bus at 18.00 to
go to town if there is no bus to get them home at 23.00 after a night
out with friends? In London there's little reason to even consider that
scenario unless you happen to live on the W10!

....which is one of the reasons I love living here - the *minimum* bus
frequency on the way home is about every ten minutes (364 days a year!).

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.

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.

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.

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On 9 Feb, 16:56, wrote:
Does anyone how many buses operate on behalf of London Buses (or know
how I can find out)? And how many of these are double deckers, single
deckers and articulated buses respectively?

Thanks,
Dominic

The most recent breakdown I have for TfL contracted buses was given in
Buses Focus 42 (July/Aug 2006)

Artics (1 type) 387 buses
Double Deck (13 Types) 4920 (of which 20 are Routemasters)
Larger Single Deck (4 Types) 61
Small Single Deck (11 Types) 2674
This gives a total fleet of 8042 of which 8022 are low floor.

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!

On 17 Feb, 16:19, "Stephen Allcroft"
wrote:
The most recent breakdown I have for TfL contracted buses was given in
Buses Focus 42 (July/Aug 2006)

Artics (1 type) 387 buses
Double Deck (13 Types) 4920 (of which 20 are Routemasters)
Larger Single Deck (4 Types) 61
Small Single Deck (11 Types) 2674
This gives a total fleet of 8042 of which 8022 are low floor.

Thanks very much.

Dominic