I have to disagree about the Lothian website. The timetables are confusing and unclear while the use of "spider maps" for Network maps is something that should've been left in 2005. First Glasgow's network and route maps are much better, albeit their online timetables are just as confusing.
Fair enough, but that would have to be a matter of personal preference then. Just to be clear, I also think the timetables and maps could be improved (I've certainly seen a lot better in Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Denmark), but I still prefer Lothian's to Firstbus's. I also find the website, as a whole, to be more intuitive, but that could just be me.
I would likely to see better route integration in Edinburgh. I'm sure there are corridors where multiple routes combine to provide a cohesive frequency but this isn't advertised anywhere nor are there combined timetables. Route numbering could also be better in some cases.
Absolutely. Though the route numbering should for the most part not be touched in my view (Glasgow's route numbering is a mess), some minor adjustments could definitely be made. On the one hand, route numbering could be changed to reflect which lines have higher frequencies (12 minutes or less) and which lines operate less frequently. On the other hand, several "core" routes, made up of bundled lines, could be advertised to have "ultra high" or "turn up and go" frequencies. I know that in practice buses still get stuck in traffic, bunch up etc. But the frequencies on core sections would still be (and are already today) higher than a bus every 12-20 minutes. Also, as has been pointed out many times, more bus-priority could also help alleviate some of the bus bunching problems.
The 26 used to be 8 buses an hour. The 22 was also very regular prior to Covid. Other services (e.g. 3,31 and 44) haven't returned to pre covid levels but maybe will in time.
Right, well let's hope those frequencies are upped again at some point, funding permitting.