To go through your comments...
In terms of what most people who use buses earn the cost of monthlys etc is hardly discounted.
Have you any evidence to back this up or is it just your opinion?
If First showed they cared about customers and kept prices down a bit more hence the 20% I mentioned they could easily make that back up.
Again, have you any evidence to back this up that if they cut fares by 20% that they would be able to more that recoup that?
In Bristol, they have been able to push up patronage and revisions to the fare system, as well as effective route branding, has been a part of that. However, they did have the benefit of many services having been single decked. A programme of converting routes to decker operation has meant that the growth has been accommodated for little additional cost, especially as some services have had headways widened.
With many services in Glasgow already being deckers, it's just not so easy to accommodate growth.
Just an example here. City zone 10 week is still working out at £115 and £11.50 a week doesn't sound a lot but it is when incomes are low and the cost of living is going up faster than wages.
To put this in context....what job do you do?
Whilst what you say was true 2/3 years ago, wage inflation is in excess of the cost of living especially in Glasgow
https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news...wages-grow-more-than-anywhere-else-in-the-uk/ Perhaps your job/sector is an outlier but in general, wages are higher in Glasgow than much of Scotland and increasing faster
Some people will always prefer speed over cost but in Glasgow now I reckon it would be a small minority like that. If the bus is significantly cheaper than anything else then that won't be turned down.
Think you're very much mistaken there. I struggle to think of an example where the train service hasn't been reintroduced or improved and it not have a significant impact on bus service patronage.
The other problem with the tickets is that there's not many people who will have the cash available at once for a longer ticket to get a better deal. Even if the 4 weekly was a full month it would work out better because as much as there's people who do get paid every 4 weeks there's also still so many who get paid on set days each month meaning that the train becomes more attractive over that just as it covers a full month. 10 week has the same problem. Would need to be a full 3 month ticket to have real benefit to most people who would use it
OK....let's check this out
A weekly ticket costs £17.00... a saving of 26% on a day ticket (at £4.60 - think it's unlikely that many people are travelling across the breadth of the network each day)
A 4 week ticket costs £53.00... a saving of 22% on a 4*weekly tickets
A 10 week ticket costs £115.00....a saving of 13% on 2.5*4 week tickets
Therefore, they are definitely rewarding loyalty to passengers.
I'm not certain exactly how you are proposing to cut fares by your 20%. Are you saying just singles? Blanket cut on everything?
Also, is there really an issue with a monthly ticket being a calendar month rather than a four week period. In terms of working days per month (as that's the main market for monthly passengers), you're looking at 20 days per month vs 21 or 22. It's a 5% difference. If people are making decisions on taking the train vs. the bus, I can assure you that it's much more to do with speed AND generally the train is more expensive anyway.
I know you're a bus enthusiast (or a First Glasgow enthusiast) but most people choose the train not on economic but on speed grounds.