NEXUS take-over ?

[Tetchytyke]

That is actually worse than I had expected. Perhaps as Robert has suggested, it is a reflection of peoples' obsession with smart phones etc?

It is pretty bad at Blackett Street/New Bridge Street. People are distracted with smartphones, etc, but the street furniture around the monument isn't very good. The bit across the square basically looks like an extension of the pededstrianised Grey Street and Grainger Street, and there's not enough street furniture to make it clear that it's a busy road. The bus drivers are usually blameless but I've seen a few too many close shaves for my liking.

That said, the number of buses using that street is getting ridiculous, and it is time to consider re-routing some routes. Traffic jams on Blackett Street are common because of the stack of buses all coming through, especially at the narrow bit by the zebra crossing on Old Eldon Square. They managed to re-route buses when Northumberland Street was fully pedestrianised in the early 90s, it's probably time to consider the same for Blackett Street.

Bus vs light rail in Tyneside has always had a strange relationship. Many of the cross-river services stem from deregulation in 1986, because before that TWPTE curtailed buses at Gateshead to encourage people on to Metro. There is still that element of competing with Metro that you don't get in London, for instance, and that is a pointless duplication of services. Go Ahead have also been rather vociferous in their opposition to enhancing train services at Blaydon and Dunston because they don't want the competition.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is pretty bad at Blackett Street/New Bridge Street. People are distracted with smartphones, etc, but the street furniture around the monument isn't very good. The bit across the square basically looks like an extension of the pededstrianised Grey Street and Grainger Street, and there's not enough street furniture to make it clear that it's a busy road. The bus drivers are usually blameless but I've seen a few too many close shaves for my liking.

That said, the number of buses using that street is getting ridiculous, and it is time to consider re-routing some routes. Traffic jams on Blackett Street are common because of the stack of buses all coming through, especially at the narrow bit by the zebra crossing on Old Eldon Square. They managed to re-route buses when Northumberland Street was fully pedestrianised in the early 90s, it's probably time to consider the same for Blackett Street.

Bus vs light rail in Tyneside has always had a strange relationship. Many of the cross-river services stem from deregulation in 1986, because before that TWPTE curtailed buses at Gateshead to encourage people on to Metro. There is still that element of competing with Metro that you don't get in London, for instance, and that is a pointless duplication of services. Go Ahead have also been rather vociferous in their opposition to enhancing train services at Blaydon and Dunston because they don't want the competition.

You make a very valid point about the definition of the area in terms of paving and street furniture. There has been this creation of some time of piazza involving the Monument and the top of Grainger Street and Grey Street. That almost seems to extend across towards Old Eldon Square but that has the road cutting through it which is the crux of the issue.

It's funny how many times it is mentioned about the truncating of bus services is mentioned. Really, it's the Gateshead locals 53/54/56/57/58/97 that were extended back over the bridge. All the other services, whether it be SE Northumberland, Tyne Valley, Birtley and Wrekenton, County Durham and Cleveland always ran through to Newcastle anyway.

I don't know how vociferous Go Ahead have been. Blaydon station is in such a poor location that trade is never going to be great with virtually no houses nearby, bounded by the river on one side and by a dual carriageway on the other. Dunston is slightly better off

 

[radamfi]

I have barely visited the North East and I haven't studied the QC developments that closely, nothing like I did when the West Yorkshire QC debate was happening, as that is an area I know well as I regularly travelled around West Yorkshire as a kid because of their 50p DayRover which was valid across the boundary to Rochdale (by bus). After the failure of the West Yorkshire scheme I just assumed the same would happen further north. Of course, there is still a long way to go, but they have now gone one stage further than West Yorkshire did.

However, I still feel as if I know a lot about the area because I have read so many messages from Paul Corfield, who is a well known forum/discussion group contributor and until recently worked at a senior level for London Underground. He grew up in the North East during the 70s/80s and over the years has regularly reminisced about the one place and time when the UK enjoyed integrated transport. Here is an example of one of his posts from 2010:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/uk.railway/lharyvHksVU/T5govAF7LBkJ

On Aug 6, 11:27 am, Mizter T <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 9:59 am, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 09:45:15 +0100, Ian Jelf
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In message <[email protected]>, Bruce
> > ><[email protected]> writes
>
> > >>On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 21:55:02 +0100, Ian Jelf
> > >><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>>Thanks for posting this. I *really* enjoyed watching it. As a late
> > >>>teenager, T&W seemed the only place in Britain that aspired to the sort
> > >>>of investment and integrated transport I'd seen in Germany. I imagined
> > >>>that it would be the template for other areas but of course things
> > >>>didn't quite work out that way.......
>
> > >>Liverpool had significant investment in the Merseyrail underground
> > >>system in the 1970s with the Loop and Link lines.
>
> > >Indeed. But - as far as I could tell - it never truly embraced the
> > >feeder bus ethos of T&W.
>
> > That's true, but the trains and buses were under the same control, and
> > integrated in the sense that many bus routes called at Merseyrail
> > stations - and had done since pre-Merseyrail days.
>
> > Was T&W's feeder bus thing widespread? Did it extend much beyond the
> > highly publicised bus/Metro interchange at Heworth?
>
> Four Lane Ends, Gateshead, Regent Centre were other big bus hubs... in
> fact look at the Metro map and even now it indicates certain stations
> as being 'main bus interchanges':http://www.nexus.org.uk/sites/nexus.org.uk/files/images/metro/Metro_M...
>
> I think the whole T&W bus network was more or less reconfigured/
> redesigned in order to serve/ feed the Metro
I think the bit people perhaps don't realise is that while the
interchanges were key in reducing the volume of long distance buses
into Newcastle the entire system was designed to allow integrated
travel. You could travel on one ticket via bus, metro and bus. You
could also use the Ferry as a link with bus connections at both ferry
landings. Similarly you could use the BR line to Sunderland and then
connect onto local buses in Sunderland. It was also possible to
interchange between bus routes *anywhere* with a Transfare ticket thus
paying once for the total number of zones traversed. This latter
ability died with deregulation because bus operators wanted as much of
the market to themselves as possible. When the bus network was
redesigned the timetables were created in a way that provided even
headways between services over common sections to deliberately get rid
of bunching and to give high frequencies. This is another aspect of
the system that has largely gone these days although Go Ahead are a
bit more attentive to even headways than Arriva and Stagecoach. To be
strictly fair there were anomolies as the Carlisle rail line was
outside the "transfare" scheme as were some of the "out county" long
distance buses from County Durham and Northumberland. It was not a
perfect system but it worked pretty well - as a teenager I travelled
extensively around Tyne and Wear with no real worry about journeys
because you'd always get back to a bus service that connected with
others or with the Metro.

Transfares and bus routes serving interchanges still exist but the
valid interchanges are far, far reduced compared to pre 1986. I am
not aware of anywhere else in the UK that achieved the same level of
multi modal interchange and single fare through ticketing that T&W
achieved. It's common practice elsewhere in the world but we're mad
enough to have smashed into little pieces the one example we had in
the UK.

Looking at Paul Scott's [1] comment about Regent Centre - he is, of
course, correct that for Newcastle bound journeys (on the 44, 45 and
46!) then there was little time difference. Nonetheless you could
still look up a bus timetable and see the times of the metro train's
arrival at the interchange and plan your trip. If you started at
somewhere else on the Metro system you could make a confident
connection by linking into the train shown as connecting at the
interchange point. This ability to connect with confidence was
crucial to the system's success.

[1] a fellow North Easterner I see!

--
Paul C
via Google

 

[ModernRailways]

It is pretty bad at Blackett Street/New Bridge Street. People are distracted with smartphones, etc, but the street furniture around the monument isn't very good. The bit across the square basically looks like an extension of the pededstrianised Grey Street and Grainger Street, and there's not enough street furniture to make it clear that it's a busy road. The bus drivers are usually blameless but I've seen a few too many close shaves for my liking.

That said, the number of buses using that street is getting ridiculous, and it is time to consider re-routing some routes. Traffic jams on Blackett Street are common because of the stack of buses all coming through, especially at the narrow bit by the zebra crossing on Old Eldon Square. They managed to re-route buses when Northumberland Street was fully pedestrianised in the early 90s, it's probably time to consider the same for Blackett Street.

Bus vs light rail in Tyneside has always had a strange relationship. Many of the cross-river services stem from deregulation in 1986, because before that TWPTE curtailed buses at Gateshead to encourage people on to Metro. There is still that element of competing with Metro that you don't get in London, for instance, and that is a pointless duplication of services. Go Ahead have also been rather vociferous in their opposition to enhancing train services at Blaydon and Dunston because they don't want the competition.

I suspect Blackett Street will be fully pedestrianised in the next 2 years if an alternative for the buses can be found. intu Eldon Square want to have al fresco style dining areas, but right now it wouldn't be practical with all the bus fumes and the fact the street (alongside Eldon Square) looks like a right tip and stuck in the 70s. What I do wonder however is where the buses will go? Is there really anywhere they can go?

The option of bus or Metro is to me a great thing! I like having the option of a 15 minute longer journey that is more convenient or a Metro journey which is quicker. GNE keep their buses in good condition and they are really quite reliable now for the most part. If the bus was curtailed at Gateshead instead of going into Newcastle, then I would simply get the Metro the whole way and I imagine a lot of others would do the same. People would rather walk a little longer at their destination than change transport modes.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I have barely visited the North East and I haven't studied the QC developments that closely..........However, I still feel as if I know a lot about the area because I have read so many messages from Paul Corfield, who is a well known forum/discussion group contributor and until recently worked at a senior level for London Underground. He grew up in the North East during the 70s/80s and over the years has regularly reminisced about the one place and time when the UK enjoyed integrated transport. Her

I don't think you can read Paul's posts (as detailed and passionate as they are) and use that as insight. I'm a little younger than Paul but I too grew up in the North East in the those days. I lived in Newcastle for a few years (albeit post dereg) but for most of that time, I was a visitor coming into the area from further afield.

The fact is that there were a lot of positive things about the Metro, and they still exist. It transformed some moribund local rail services, with modern rolling stock and high frequencies. In that respect, there was genuine modal shift from local buses and even car users. I'm a great fan of the Metro and used it extensively.

Now (as the poster Modern Railways said), there's the current benefit of an option whether to change or not. One of the issues of the old pre86 situation was that it was Hobson's choice if you lived in many areas of Gateshead. You HAD to change so Paul's statement about modal shift has to be viewed in that way. People had no choice. As soon as those routes were extended back over the bridge, guess what? People didn't want the extra time and faffing and so stayed on the buses. Why make people interchange for dogmatic reasons (or to artificially inflate ridership figures)?

Paul is overstating the impact of the reduction of long distance services into Newcastle. In truth, everything from the West was unaffected (no Metro west of Newcastle city centre). From the North, there was little change with services continuing to run in from Northumberland, hence why Regent Centre interchange never really worked. From the south, a whole range of services from Derwentside, plus further afield such as Chester le Street and the rest of Co Durham and Cleveland continued.

Where the real benefits were, and still exist today in many respects, is from areas such as Washington and South Tyneside where services ran into Heworth and South Shields and could then feed into the Metro to central Newcastle. The faster journey speeds overall helped to overcome the disincentive of changing. Similarly, there were other examples with feeders in North Tyneside into Four Lane Ends and these also continue today. The system wasn't smashed.

Also, there was a recognition that duplication isn't so straightforward a concept. There were services like the 306 to Tynemouth that continued simply because there was a recognition that could run parallel to the Metro and serve communities more effectively.

As I say, my recollections aren't as extensive as Paul's but that's because of one other little quirk. When I travelled into the area pre86, I would be doing so on an NBC Explorer ticket. However, you could only really penetrate certain areas as TWPTE insisted that Explorers could not be used on journeys solely within T&W. :roll:

 

[radamfi]

Where the real benefits were, and still exist today in many respects, is from areas such as Washington and South Tyneside where services ran into Heworth and South Shields and could then feed into the Metro to central Newcastle. The faster journey speeds overall helped to overcome the disincentive of changing. Similarly, there were other examples with feeders in North Tyneside into Four Lane Ends and these also continue today. The system wasn't smashed.

He was referring to the integrated ticketing as 'smashed'. Transfares do still exist, and as far as I know nowhere else in the UK offers combined single fares between bus and a rail mode across a whole region. However if you look at the pricing:

http://www.nexus.org.uk/adult-day-tickets

Transfares cost £2.70, £3.50 or £4.20 for 1, 2 or 3 zones. These fares are a premium compared to buying a single Metro ticket which are £1.80, £2.60 and £3.30, so you are being surcharged 90p for a single trip if one component of the trip happens to be on a bus. Not only that, I assume that where a direct bus route exists, that undercuts the Metro only fare.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

He was referring to the integrated ticketing as 'smashed'. Transfares do still exist, and as far as I know nowhere else in the UK offers combined single fares between bus and a rail mode across a whole region. However if you look at the pricing:

http://www.nexus.org.uk/adult-day-tickets

Transfares cost £2.70, £3.50 or £4.20 for 1, 2 or 3 zones. These fares are a premium compared to buying a single Metro ticket which are £1.80, £2.60 and £3.30, so you are being surcharged 90p for a single trip if one component of the trip happens to be on a bus. Not only that, I assume that where a direct bus route exists, that undercuts the Metro only fare.

That's not what was said; Paul was referring to BOTH interchange and through ticketing. Whilst things aren't as they were, it clearly isn't smashed.

Now, you mention the 90p Transfare surcharge enabling undercutting. Well, look at a specific journey from Monkton Lane Shops to Newcastle. It can be done as a through journey on the 27 (taking 56 mins). Alternative, you can take the 27 but transfer onto the Metro at Heworth with a shorter journey time of 40 mins. You have the choice to pay £1.80 or pay an extra 90p and do the journey in less time.

As in most aspects of life, a superior service offering costs more.

Where I do get annoyed by the NE bus companies is their promotion of their own day tickets (where they retain all the revenue) whilst almost ignoring the Explorer North East which is a multi operator ticket (that now includes Stagecoach in both T&W and Teesside - better than 1986).

Rather than a misguided QC, a partnership that locks in the operators to commitments is the way forward. Ticketing and promotion is one area, and the commitments given on new buses and frequencies must be adequately enforced.

 

[radamfi]

Now, you mention the 90p Transfare surcharge enabling undercutting. Well, look at a specific journey from Monkton Lane Shops to Newcastle. It can be done as a through journey on the 27 (taking 56 mins). Alternative, you can take the 27 but transfer onto the Metro at Heworth with a shorter journey time of 40 mins. You have the choice to pay £1.80 or pay an extra 90p and do the journey in less time.

As in most aspects of life, a superior service offering costs more.

What is more pertinent is where you compare a single journey that can be carried out totally by Metro, with a comparable journey that involves an interchange. You are paying 90p more, yet you are inconvenienced by having to change, and probably a slower journey. Changing should cost no more than a through service. Arguably you should be paying less for the 'inferior service'!

Where I do get annoyed by the NE bus companies is their promotion of their own day tickets (where they retain all the revenue) whilst almost ignoring the Explorer North East which is a multi operator ticket (that now includes Stagecoach in both T&W and Teesside - better than 1986).

The Explorer North East is obviously great value if you are doing a lot of travelling in a day across the whole North East, but not for more mundane trips, say a bus then Metro into Newcastle and then the same back home wholly within the Tyne & Wear county. For that you might be looking at a £6.90 Day Rover, which is rather expensive compared to single operator bus only day tickets, and the £4.50 Metro only day ticket.

Rather than a misguided QC, a partnership that locks in the operators to commitments is the way forward. Ticketing and promotion is one area, and the commitments given on new buses and frequencies must be adequately enforced.

I thought one the main sticking points in negotiations was that the operators insisted on retaining their own single operator tickets that would undercut the integrated fare. I can't remember if that was just the problem in West Yorkshire or just in the North East or in both. I also assume that the bus operators didn't agree to no longer being able to set their own fares. I can't see a Partnership deal with the operators setting their own fares being acceptable to an authority wanting a QC.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

What is more pertinent is where you compare a single journey that can be carried out totally by Metro, with a comparable journey that involves an interchange. You are paying 90p more, yet you are inconvenienced by having to change, and probably a slower journey. Changing should cost no more than a through service. Arguably you should be paying less for the 'inferior service'!



The Explorer North East is obviously great value if you are doing a lot of travelling in a day across the whole North East, but not for more mundane trips, say a bus then Metro into Newcastle and then the same back home wholly within the Tyne & Wear county. For that you might be looking at a £6.90 Day Rover, which is rather expensive compared to single operator bus only day tickets, and the £4.50 Metro only day ticket.



I thought one the main sticking points in negotiations was that the operators insisted on retaining their own single operator tickets that would undercut the integrated fare. I can't remember if that was just the problem in West Yorkshire or just in the North East or in both. I also assume that the bus operators didn't agree to no longer being able to set their own fares. I can't see a Partnership deal with the operators setting their own fares being acceptable to an authority wanting a QC.

I don't have an issue with operators having their own tickets. However, it's the promotion of those and the non promotion of multi operator tickets. Go North East does have some mention on their fares splash page and click on the correct section and you do get fare information etc

Stagecoach mention single fares then daily tickets but only their daily tickets. You'd be forgiven for thinking that was all there was. Only when you scroll through the page past schools and education fares, concessionary travel, weekly and monthly tickets do you reach "Other Tickets". It mentions Explorer (but not Day Rover) and has a link to the Nexus home page. It's that selective promotion and misdirection that I don't like. A QP would sort that sort of nonsense out easily.

Fact is that Nexus don't want a QBP, they want a QC. They don't want anything else, and for obvious reasons. It's not about buses....it's all about the Metro.

 

[ChathillMan]

Network One has its own marketing budget which is contributed by the partners (Stagecoach, GNE, ANE, NEXUS)

I can only assume it is an oversight on the part of Stagecoach as they advertise multi operator tickets on other Stagecoach bus websites

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Network One has its own marketing budget which is contributed by the partners (Stagecoach, GNE, ANE, NEXUS)

I can only assume it is an oversight on the part of Stagecoach as they advertise multi operator tickets on other Stagecoach bus websites

The Arriva website is also pretty awful for that info. Again, Arriva's day ticket is prominent at the top whilst Explorer is tucked away. No mention of T&W Day Rover
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is more pertinent is where you compare a single journey that can be carried out totally by Metro, with a comparable journey that involves an interchange. You are paying 90p more, yet you are inconvenienced by having to change, and probably a slower journey. Changing should cost no more than a through service. Arguably you should be paying less for the 'inferior service'!

However, if you can do it solely by Metro, and it's quicker and cheaper, why would you change?

 

[radamfi]

Stagecoach mention single fares then daily tickets but only their daily tickets. You'd be forgiven for thinking that was all there was. Only when you scroll through the page past schools and education fares, concessionary travel, weekly and monthly tickets do you reach "Other Tickets". It mentions Explorer (but not Day Rover) and has a link to the Nexus home page. It's that selective promotion and misdirection that I don't like. A QP would sort that sort of nonsense out easily.

A hardcore free-marketeer would say that joint operator tickets are anti-competitive and should not be allowed. They would certainly not want to regulate what products a company should advertise.

However, if you can do it solely by Metro, and it's quicker and cheaper, why would you change?

I am talking about a trip that cannot be carried out by Metro alone. This trip may be of equal length and of equal importance and equal 'desirability' as one which is connected by a direct Metro, yet costs more simply because the Metro doesn't serve that route directly.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

A hardcore free-marketeer would say that joint operator tickets are anti-competitive and should not be allowed. They would certainly not want to regulate what products a company should advertise.



I am talking about a trip that cannot be carried out by Metro alone. This trip may be of equal length and of equal importance and equal 'desirability' as one which is connected by a direct Metro, yet costs more simply because the Metro doesn't serve that route directly.

So when you said "totally by Metro" you meant otherwise. Excellent.

I'm not a hardcore free marketeer. It's not binary that I must be Gordon Gecko if I I don't believe in the command economy of Nexus I don't believe Nexus's figures stack up. Even they had to revise them down and remove the extra buses.

 

[radamfi]

So when you said "totally by Metro" you meant otherwise. Excellent.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not too familiar with Tyneside but I will try to give an example to clarify.

A trip from Chichester near South Shields to Newcastle can be undertaken by a direct Metro train.

A trip from Cleadon Park near South Shields to Newcastle requires a combination of Metro and bus.

Why should the latter cost more than the former?

I suppose I shouldn't be so hard on the operators and authorities of the North East, given that in London it costs even more to change between bus and Tube, and that is where both the buses and Tube are controlled by the same public organisation.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not too familiar with Tyneside but I will try to give an example to clarify.

A trip from Chichester near South Shields to Newcastle can be undertaken by a direct Metro train.

A trip from Cleadon Park near South Shields to Newcastle requires a combination of Metro and bus.

Why should the latter cost more than the former?

I suppose I shouldn't be so hard on the operators and authorities of the North East, given that in London it costs even more to change between bus and Tube, and that is where both the buses and Tube are controlled by the same public organisation.

To be fair, I now understand where you're coming from.

In truth, it's a moot point. Some would say it shouldn't have a difference. Some may say it's a reflection of different cost bases and should be different. I don't think there's a right answer.

 

[Jonny]

A trip from Chichester near South Shields to Newcastle can be undertaken by a direct Metro train.

A trip from Cleadon Park near South Shields to Newcastle requires a combination of Metro and bus.

Why should the latter cost more than the former?

Perhaps because the cost base is driven by the topography of the area, which was deemed to be much less amenable to railways when they were built (Seriously though, the railways tend to avoid Cleadon and Cleadon Park - just like railways tend to avoid hills). Cleadon village is at the top of a hill and Cleadon Park is on the same ridge, trains don't like steep gradients and tunnels are expensive to the point of uneconomic.

 

[radamfi]

Does it make sense to charge more for a single trip that involves a change of buses compared to making a single trip of the same distance on a through bus? That is a traditional that is common to many places with a British historical influence, regardless of whether the buses are deregulated, state-run or tendered, such as London, Northern Ireland, Dublin and Hong Kong (but not North America where free transfers are the standard).

Taunton and Bridgwater have introduced free transfers:

http://www.busesofsomerset.co.uk/tickets.shtml

so if they can do it, in unpromising bus territory, so can anywhere else.

 

[Deerfold]

Taunton and Bridgwater have introduced free transfers:

http://www.busesofsomerset.co.uk/tickets.shtml

so if they can do it, in unpromising bus territory, so can anywhere else.

But is that better value for passengers? They're only doing it for routes within a small area

In my local town I can get a day ticket for a very similar £3.10 allowing me to do a similar return journey on different buses within the town area. There's still a return fare into town from my local stop (last but one within the area) of £2.70.

Should only the £3.10 one be available to allow people to change?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But is that better value for passengers?

It probably doesn't make much difference in places where a journey with a change is probably a longer one (into town and back out). In London I think it is ridiculous that with Oyster a second bus touch-in isn't free within a specified period, say 60 minutes of the first, as London's network is far more of a haphazard web.

I understand why bus companies don't like it for paper single tickets, as they get touted or given away, but you wouldn't give your Oyster away so to me there is no excuse.

Neil

 

[radamfi]

But is that better value for passengers? They're only doing it for routes within a small area

In my local town I can get a day ticket for a very similar £3.10 allowing me to do a similar return journey on different buses within the town area. There's still a return fare into town from my local stop (last but one within the area) of £2.70.

Should only the £3.10 one be available to allow people to change?

In the UK, day tickets have become the de facto substitute for free transfers, because the price of singles have risen so enormously that a return is often done using a day ticket, as day tickets have not gone up so much. In the case of Taunton/Bridgwater, they appear not to have a day ticket, apart from the £10 networkwide one, so I guess that is how they are funding the free transfers there.

But, unless the day ticket is the same price as a single, people who only make a single journey in a day that involves a change are treated unfairly, simply because they don't enjoy a direct service. For example, people who get a lift in one direction.

In most European countries, you have to travel a lot to make a day ticket worthwhile as the price difference between singles and day tickets is usually much greater. For example, in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, a single is either 1.00 euro or 1.90 euro depending on the distance and time travelled, if you buy a Lijnkaart. A day ticket is 5 euros (off bus) so even if you make the longest return trip possible, a day ticket isn't worth it as two singles would be 3.80 euros. If you get a 1.90 single, you are allowed to board the last vehicle in the single trip up to 90 minutes after initial validation, so if your last bus takes an hour, you would be getting a 2.5 hour single trip for 1.90.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

In the UK, day tickets have become the de facto substitute for free transfers, because the price of singles have risen so enormously that a return is often done using a day ticket, as day tickets have not gone up so much.

Bus companies have basically increased single fares as the pledge on ENCTS that companies would be "no worse off" was piffle. With councils arbitrarily cutting rates (I have sympathy - the scheme isn't funded adequately), bus companies have simply responded by upping single fares (to increase remuneration) whilst not affecting those regular passengers with weekly/monthly tickets or indeed people who want more than one single journey.

There is no point in citing European examples when they actually invest in public transport. You're comparing apples with aubergines.

In fact, it's worse than that. If it were a commercial entity forcing a business to provide a product with a forced discount that is arbitrarily calculated, there would be hell on. However, councils do just that (but as I say, it isn't necessarily their fault).

Ps that rabid and evil free-marketeer Roger French has put forward his views on the Nexus scheme in CBW. He too states what is all too obvious - the sums don't add up!

 

[Deerfold]

In the UK, day tickets have become the de facto substitute for free transfers, because the price of singles have risen so enormously that a return is often done using a day ticket, as day tickets have not gone up so much. In the case of Taunton/Bridgwater, they appear not to have a day ticket, apart from the £10 networkwide one, so I guess that is how they are funding the free transfers there.

But, unless the day ticket is the same price as a single, people who only make a single journey in a day that involves a change are treated unfairly, simply because they don't enjoy a direct service. For example, people who get a lift in one direction.

You seem to have missed my point that my local day ticket is about the same price as Taunton's transfer ticket - but the return on one service ticket is also available as a cheaper option. I don't think Taunton wins that one, despite having the transfer tickets you enjoy so much.

(Unusually, 2 of the buses an hour past my house will also sell you a return ticket valid for a month, not just a day).

The only area I've known to have tried transfer tickets was Nottingham's NCT.

They gave up when large numbers were passed on to others and fare income dived.

 

[radamfi]

You seem to have missed my point that my local day ticket is about the same price as Taunton's transfer ticket - but the return on one service ticket is also available as a cheaper option. I don't think Taunton wins that one, despite having the transfer tickets you enjoy so much.

(Unusually, 2 of the buses an hour past my house will also sell you a return ticket valid for a month, not just a day).

The only area I've known to have tried transfer tickets was Nottingham's NCT.

They gave up when large numbers were passed on to others and fare income dived.

A return in your location costs either 2.70 or 3.10 depending whether you change. In Taunton that would be 3.00 whether you change or not. Not much difference there. But a single in Taunton costs 2.00 and up to 3.10 in your location.

Actually, I'm not impressed with the return costing so much less than two singles in Taunton. But this argument applies to trains too, where singles often cost a few pence less than a return.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is no point in citing European examples when they actually invest in public transport. You're comparing apples with aubergines.

In this case, for once, the level of funding isn't that relevant. You could just scale up the numbers to accommodate the different subsidy level. The existence of deregulation does make a difference, though, as rises in day tickets have been kept lower than for singles to keep passengers loyal to one company, or to try to prevent competition happening in the first place.

There seems to be a 'British disease' when it comes to ticketing, regardless of the type of regulation or level of subsidy. TfL charge per vehicle on their buses but not on their trains. They are at the forefront of technology so they have no excuse. What about when Sheffield had their 5p fare? Were transfers allowed then? (I don't know, but I guess not).

Conversely, De Lijn in Belgium (my example above) could abandon free transfers, and therefore advertise a lower headline rate for a 'single' fare.

Ps that rabid and evil free-marketeer Roger French has put forward his views on the Nexus scheme in CBW. He too states what is all too obvious - the sums don't add up!

Would Mr French still disapprove of a QC even if lavish funding was available? I'm sure he would say that as Brighton is a great success, despite deregulation and unsubsidised fares, there is no need to introduce subsidy or regulation. The problem is, most places have a much worse service than Brighton.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

In this case, for once, the level of funding isn't that relevant. You could just scale up the numbers to accommodate the different subsidy level. Would Mr French still disapprove of a QC even if lavish funding was available? I'm sure he would say that as Brighton is a great success, despite deregulation and unsubsidised fares, there is no need to introduce subsidy or regulation. The problem is, most places have a much worse service than Brighton.

Think you misinterpreted. I had a paragraph about ENCTS and inadequate funding by government. Then a separate paragraph about you seemingly always referring to some part of mainland Europe that exists in a completely different environment. The two weren't linked.

However, that aside, Roger French speaks a lot of sense. Main highlights were his assertion that the difference between profit margin (average on Tyneside of commercial operators not just the oft quoted Stagecoach) and the anticipated management fee for contract operators is about 6%. He also noted how Nexus's figures were so wide of the mark first time around and that they've simpled recut figures and made new assumptions to make the maths fit.

Interestingly, he also identified the issue of innovation in bus services and his concern that this may be overshadowed by the the moral obligation of providing socially necessary services.

In short, I don't think he believes that is the role of a local authority to take the commercial risk on bus services. That isn't what they're good at. He didn't say about what might happen if massive funding was available......probably because it won't happen. Much in the same way that he didn't mention hoverboards or the end of armed conflict across the world.

 

[radamfi]

Single fares had already risen dramatically compared to day tickets before nationwide free concessionary travel. However, I do remember First Manchester nominally having very high single fares that no one would ever buy, because they were more than a day ticket. These pointless fares were even advertised on the vehicle when fare rises were announced, as they showed the 'old' and 'new' fares in a table. The only reason for those fares was so that they could recover a higher reimbursement rate for concessionary travel. This was when pensioners had a low flat fare for any distance within Greater Manchester. (Obviously not including interchanges. There was a separate charge for each bus.) I don't know if they still do that today.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Single fares had already risen dramatically compared to day tickets before nationwide free concessionary travel. However, I do remember First Manchester nominally having very high single fares that no one would ever buy, because they were more than a day ticket. These pointless fares were even advertised on the vehicle when fare rises were announced, as they showed the 'old' and 'new' fares in a table. The only reason for those fares was so that they could recover a higher reimbursement rate for concessionary travel. This was when pensioners had a low flat fare for any distance within Greater Manchester. (Obviously not including interchanges. There was a separate charge for each bus.) I don't know if they still do that today.

The same reason as exists now, merely applied across the country

 

[radamfi]

In short, I don't think he believes that is the role of a local authority to take the commercial risk on bus services. That isn't what they're good at.

But that is what happens in London. So surely this means that London should be deregulated?

I still haven't read a satisfactory argument why deregulation is appropriate outside London but not inside.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But that is what happens in London. So surely this means that London should be deregulated?

I still haven't read a satisfactory argument why deregulation is appropriate outside London but not inside.

History is often riddled with inconsistency. Whether it's the 6 counties of the 32 in Ireland or bus deregulation. Basically, it was decided politically not to deregulate London and it remains an anachronism, more so with a very powerful mayoral position.

I'd have more time for the Nexus proposal if it wasn't based on fundamental flaws in reality like the margin expectation of operators (as one example).

And you wouldn't have read anything.....as by your own admission, you don't as those bus company managers who espouse deregulation and private enterprise are not worth reading about as they lie and cheat etc

 

[radamfi]

History is often riddled with inconsistency. Whether it's the 6 counties of the 32 in Ireland or bus deregulation. Basically, it was decided politically not to deregulate London and it remains an anachronism, more so with a very powerful mayoral position.

If it was up to you, would you advocate deregulation in London?

 

[Deerfold]

If it was up to you, would you advocate deregulation in London?

There is an element of deregulation in London already. There's many routes run entirely commercially, most notably all the tourist sightseeing services.