|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Mar 26, 2013 9:37:06 GMT 1
What winds me up more than anything else is buses running early. I think it's been picked up in Omnibuses comments recently, but there's just no excuse for it. At best it's absent mindedness or lack of timetable knowledge, and if they run at 10 minute intervals it shouldn't be too much of an inconvenience provided the next bus turns up on time. But surely bus drivers know better than any punter how and why that's not always the case, and be considerate towards people who ultimately keep them employed. Early running is unforgiveable, and most operators (assuming they have got their complaints handling procedures working) will act severely against drivers who do it. Late running is dealt with less severely as there are always reasons why it may occur, though persistent late running of an individual will be investigated & acted against. Operators will often use a different criteria when referring to services that run every 10-mins or better as they often aren't registered or publicised to specific times (though drivers will still have specific times for their journeys) and operators will concentrate more on ensuring a correct spread of services rather than specific times of individual journeys, most passengers on routes this frequent often don't actually know what time their bus is due only that they are every 10-mins so by the time you checked the time one would have gone anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Kenton Schweppes on Mar 26, 2013 11:19:35 GMT 1
You'd be surprised at how many people actually still pay for their journeys at Bus Stations and busy Town Centre stops.
I understand my idea isn't probably refined enough but you get the gist and it would need work and would throw up some anomalies that would need ironing out. But I think it has potential. The thing that is needed is a overall governing fares body, rather than individual operators, this is what that is holding the current situation back each company looking after their own interests. De-regulation has done no favours to the bus network in this respect, this is why, I suspect, Metro are trying to force the Quality Contracts on West Yorkshire.
If someone could actually grab the bus network in West Yorkshire by the short and curlys and drag it into the modern era with a modern business model then it would be onto a winner. The problem is most operators do not want this, they just wish to carry on with the status quo. If you ask me we are heading towards a 6am-6pm service, operators are just not interested in spending their own money to take the service forward, the status quo cannot remain from the passenger point of view.The current set up is killing the West Yorkshire bus network and the way to go is overall control by one body.
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 26, 2013 19:07:06 GMT 1
Re the bus running early thing, the technology is in place to assist drivers but it just needs some joining up. We have bus stop signs telling us when the bus is due, just equip that detail on the bus itself, would only need a red and green light on the dash to indicate to the driver whether to he should wait time or not. Similarly I think I have previously commented on displays in that they should be linked to the satellite tracking info and update themselves automatically. This could go further than existing procedures so that, for example,instead of Transdevs 36s changing their display at Harrogate they could continually update en route - Leeds, limited stop from Moortown would be more use than Leeds via Harewood once Harewod has been passed.
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Mar 26, 2013 23:00:45 GMT 1
Also depends what the definition of running early is.
If you live 1 stop before the timing point you'd assume the bus would come about a minute before the time at the timing point, but it could come ages before that as the bus won't wait for time until the timing point. Passengers will think this is early running when it isn't.
Also you can have the situation of a driver sitting waiting for time even though he knows just around the corner there are major roadworks that will cause 10 mins of delays. Passengers will complain about that as well.
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Mar 27, 2013 9:45:26 GMT 1
Re the bus running early thing, the technology is in place to assist drivers but it just needs some joining up. We have bus stop signs telling us when the bus is due, just equip that detail on the bus itself, would only need a red and green light on the dash to indicate to the driver whether to he should wait time or not. Similarly I think I have previously commented on displays in that they should be linked to the satellite tracking info and update themselves automatically. This could go further than existing procedures so that, for example,instead of Transdevs 36s changing their display at Harrogate they could continually update en route - Leeds, limited stop from Moortown would be more use than Leeds via Harewood once Harewod has been passed. I have experience of a similar system (not quite as complicated but nearly there) and it is horribly complicated to set up and not as reliable as it needs to be to do this, the system was also supposed to control the destination blinds but they don't appear to have ever got that part of the system to work enough to roll it out (it has been running for nearly two years now). It would need to be more than just a red & green light (that could be confused with the telematics system that increasing number of operators are introducing) and would need to give an indication of how early or late so the driver can adjust his driving. We are going that way but the technology is a long way off being robust enough to be capable of handling such a vital role - reception blackspots (which happen in the strangest places) aren't so much of an issue for Real time systems, the arrival time just suddenly when the bus reappears but for controlling timekeeping for the driver a blackspot can mean early running as the driver has no indication to wait and is so used to relying on the system that they no longer check their times against the duty board as they should now.
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Mar 27, 2013 10:11:06 GMT 1
You'd be surprised at how many people actually still pay for their journeys at Bus Stations and busy Town Centre stops. I understand my idea isn't probably refined enough but you get the gist and it would need work and would throw up some anomalies that would need ironing out. But I think it has potential. The thing that is needed is a overall governing fares body, rather than individual operators, this is what that is holding the current situation back each company looking after their own interests. De-regulation has done no favours to the bus network in this respect, this is why, I suspect, Metro are trying to force the Quality Contracts on West Yorkshire. If someone could actually grab the bus network in West Yorkshire by the short and curlys and drag it into the modern era with a modern business model then it would be onto a winner. The problem is most operators do not want this, they just wish to carry on with the status quo. If you ask me we are heading towards a 6am-6pm service, operators are just not interested in spending their own money to take the service forward, the status quo cannot remain from the passenger point of view.The current set up is killing the West Yorkshire bus network and the way to go is overall control by one body. I wouldn't be that surprised at the number but the question is how many of those passengers were travelling on singles both direction because that is what they have always bought (or to give them the choice of operators/services home) and would actually save money if multi-operator deals were marketed better (such as the ticket deal on the Kirkstall Road corridor). The issue with your idea is it needs an external fares governing body, which both raises the issue of who that is and divorces the fares from the cost of operation (and the debacle of concessionary fares reimbursement indicates just how dangerous that is) so costs spiral but fares stagnate. The most logical bodies to govern this is the local authorities but they have never shown even the remotest understanding of the costs of the bus industry (the rates of inflation they use for calculating cost increases for contracts are universally unrelated to the actual costs of operation - things like RPI which relate to ordinary people take no account of vehicle, fuel or industry specific staff costs) and in most cases there is very little evidence of even the remotest understanding of basic business skills. We have experienced a system like this before deregulation when bus companies had to apply to TCs to be able to change even one fare and everyone could object, this led to fares not keeping pace with costs and services being cut all over the place. It does need multi-operator tickets available to represent how passenger actually travel, Metro already have the systems in place and it should use that to push forward more localised tickets - there should be Metro tickets for each Town/City/Area - so a MetroCard Leeds etc to reflect how people travel - at a lower price as well as the all West Yorkshire making it easier for more people to have a ticket that can be used for how they travel. Metro could even broker ticket interavailability deals between operators for acceptance of return tickets and the like on shared corridors (the deal for the Kirkstall Road which was done without Metro involvement indicates a willingness amongst a number of the operators to consider something like this). Metro has the tools and the systems to do all this already and there has been no indication from the operators that they would be against but they have been too consumed with the idea of QCs which may appear in 5 years to do anything to improve matters this year. We may end up with a 6am-6pm service (I would have said 8pm myself) but that is more that the government is making it very hard to keep marginal services and journeys going commercially and even harder for any authority outside of London to subsidise loss making services outside of core daytime hours. You get what you pay for and the more money is funnelled out of the industry (through tax increases & funding cuts) the less the industry is able to do commercially, I don't think we will hit the true apocalypse position some name but life will not be easy. If bus operators hadn't been so flexible & innovative enabling them to weather what has already been dished out (and so compliant in not really vocally fighting about it) and if bus passengers weren't seen as being unimportant politically so politicians can ignore their needs, we may not have reached where we have reached but we are where we are and bus operators will continue fighting to serve their passengers as best they can (even if for some operators that isn't as good as others).
|
|
|
Post by Kenton Schweppes on Mar 27, 2013 11:51:42 GMT 1
Think that is the main gripe for passengers, operator specific tickets, to most passengers a bus is a bus and most people just want to pay once for a day ticket and get on any bus rather than thinking "oohh can I get on this bus that's coming", operator specific tickets should not even be on sale. I know the Quality Contracts are coming in for a lot of stick, but passengers have reached the end of their tethers with the bus operators,Metro's consultation to the new contracts proves that and I think this is Metro's way of trying to tackle the issue. Metro said they would cover the financial risks over the introduction of the contracts, so they've got to be worth a shot.
As for a governing body to regulate and control fares, Metro should be able to do this. They do seem to want to take things forward regarding the bus network and make some innovations. The only way we would ever know if the Quality Contracts, a revolution in fares and ticketing will be a success is to give it a try. Left to their own devices the operators will just let the service dwindle to suit their own financial needs and never make any innovations or try and improve things. To be fair to some operators in the Huddersfield area, some of the Centrebus drivers who operate the same routes as First,maybe on a night, will take a ticket bought on the same service operated by First. It would seem a good idea for operators to collude on routes where Centrebus operate the day service and First the evening services and vice a versa. This does happen in the Huddersfield area, I know First operate some of the Wakefield services on a night where Centrebus operate during the day. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on the operators in particular First, but it just seems they seem obsessed with their own problems rather than trying to innovate and take their business models forward. There is a lot of skepticism,negativity,apathy and stagnation in the West Yorkshire bus market by the operators at the minute and if things don't change things will only get worse.
|
|
|
Post by Arriva Wakefield on Mar 27, 2013 13:57:58 GMT 1
Think that is the main gripe for passengers, operator specific tickets, to most passengers a bus is a bus and most people just want to pay once for a day ticket and get on any bus rather than thinking "oohh can I get on this bus that's coming", operator specific tickets should not even be on sale. I know the Quality Contracts are coming in for a lot of stick, but passengers have reached the end of their tethers with the bus operators,Metro's consultation to the new contracts proves that and I think this is Metro's way of trying to tackle the issue. Metro said they would cover the financial risks over the introduction of the contracts, so they've got to be worth a shot. As for a governing body to regulate and control fares, Metro should be able to do this. They do seem to want to take things forward regarding the bus network and make some innovations. The only way we would ever know if the Quality Contracts, a revolution in fares and ticketing will be a success is to give it a try. Left to their own devices the operators will just let the service dwindle to suit their own financial needs and never make any innovations or try and improve things. To be fair to some operators in the Huddersfield area, some of the Centrebus drivers who operate the same routes as First,maybe on a night, will take a ticket bought on the same service operated by First. It would seem a good idea for operators to collude on routes where Centrebus operate the day service and First the evening services and vice a versa. This does happen in the Huddersfield area, I know First operate some of the Wakefield services on a night where Centrebus operate during the day. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on the operators in particular First, but it just seems they seem obsessed with their own problems rather than trying to innovate and take their business models forward. There is a lot of skepticism,negativity,apathy and stagnation in the West Yorkshire bus market by the operators at the minute and if things don't change things will only get worse. Don't get me started on Waterloo drivers. When I worked at Elland, and did the 2245 537 Halifax-Huddersfirld, it was regular to see passengers with £3.70 returns from Outlane to Halifax issued by Waterloo drivers, and when you said to them that the correct fare was £3.50 Off Peak Return (within Calderdale), they would tell you that they had asked for that, and been told that such a ticket didn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Kenton Schweppes on Mar 27, 2013 15:32:32 GMT 1
This is it Arriva mate, we need a uniform fare system, passengers don't give two hoots which company operates the bus. As I said previously they buy a day ticket and they just want to get on a bus regardless of who operates it. People do no want to stand shivering to death in the winter letting buses fly by that would take them to where they want to go just because they've got a operator specific ticket. Its total madness really. How can that be good for a transport network and the passenger? It isn't, simple. Now before anyone says its, what about advances on the trains isn't that the same principle? Well yes and no, rail tickets are far more expensive so its probably a good thing to buy an advance fare over long distance routes as they can be expensive.
As for the Waterloo drivers they are at least trying to be fair if someone has already bought a day ticket on that route, whether they make a rod for their own back or just shouldn't be doing it is another matter, but at least its reasonably fair.
Do we actually have anyone who works for Metro who contributes on here? Maybe they could shed some light on Quality Contracts, fares and the current lamentable situation of West Yorkshire buses?
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Mar 28, 2013 23:14:32 GMT 1
I don't see why removing cash fares would be such a problem, they have cashless fare buses in London, so why not in West Yorkshire? As I said I see the same people catching the bus everyday paying the driver a cash fare when surely it would be cheaper and more convenient just to purchase a weekly ticket. One of the reasons that cashless fares work well in London is because it's a flat-rate fare structure. You pay exactly the same whether you're going one stop or to the end of the line, and it's a standard fare no matter who the operator is. That greatly simplifies the system. It is valid on buses, tubes, trams and many (if not all) trains across London, an area much bigger than West Yorkshire and with a lot more people who regularly use public transport. That doesn't mean it couldn't work, just that the advantages of it are much lower, and the cost–benefit calculations less likely to stack up. Yes, I'm often surprised at the number of people who buy daily or even weekly tickets even though they travel most days and would be better off buying weekly, monthly or even annual tickets – although I accept that for some people an annual ticket would be an expensive outlay that they may not be able to easily afford at any one time.
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Mar 28, 2013 23:28:06 GMT 1
Communication, communication, communication! Some companies are much better at this than others. Some post regular updates on Facebook, Twitter and their websites – some post haphazardly and inconsistently – some don't do anything at all. Some don't even answer emails! While some people have been praising Arriva, and I know they have been doing a good job with the snow recently, the communications from the Selby depot in particular are uselessly non-existent most of the time.
Most people are perfectly happy to accept that sometimes things go wrong ... what matters then is what the bus company does to mitigate those problems. Early tweets and Facebook updates are essential, it's no good saying "Sorry, the 1410 isn't running" at 1425 when people have been standing around waiting for it for ages, that message needs to go out as soon as the driver/depot knows there is a problem.
Real-time information systems are theoretically great, but in practical terms are often less than worthless. Why? Because they are entirely automated with no manual input or override, and are too inconsistently operational. I've often been cutting it fine going out to get my bus, don't know if it was bang on time and I've just missed it or if it's a couple of minutes late ... check the live times and it's not shown ... more often than not, that's because it's only showing scheduled times and the bus hasn't passed yet, but if I can't rely on that, what good is it? None at all.
When services are disrupted, that's when real-time information is more important than ever, and that's also when it is most likely to fail completely and just fall back on scheduled times. NO! I know when the scheduled times are, I can read the bloody timetable, I want you to tell me what's actually happening right now! The system needs to link inbound and outbound workings so that if a bus is approaching its terminus 15 minutes late and was supposed to set off on the next journey 10 minutes ago, the system recognises that that journey is going to be late before the bus sets off. There also needs to be the facility for operators to say that a particular journey has been cancelled and for them to use that facility. The reason that the railway's live timing system works and is useful is because it doesn't just fall over at the first hint of trouble, but actually goes beyond and tells you as much information as it can. I know that level of detail is probably not realistically possible or necessary for buses, but we need something a hell of a lot better than what we're getting at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Kenton Schweppes on Mar 29, 2013 12:35:06 GMT 1
Communication, communication, communication! Some companies are much better at this than others. Some post regular updates on Facebook, Twitter and their websites – some post haphazardly and inconsistently – some don't do anything at all. Some don't even answer emails! While some people have been praising Arriva, and I know they have been doing a good job with the snow recently, the communications from the Selby depot in particular are uselessly non-existent most of the time. Most people are perfectly happy to accept that sometimes things go wrong ... what matters then is what the bus company does to mitigate those problems. Early tweets and Facebook updates are essential, it's no good saying "Sorry, the 1410 isn't running" at 1425 when people have been standing around waiting for it for ages, that message needs to go out as soon as the driver/depot knows there is a problem. Real-time information systems are theoretically great, but in practical terms are often less than worthless. Why? Because they are entirely automated with no manual input or override, and are too inconsistently operational. I've often been cutting it fine going out to get my bus, don't know if it was bang on time and I've just missed it or if it's a couple of minutes late ... check the live times and it's not shown ... more often than not, that's because it's only showing scheduled times and the bus hasn't passed yet, but if I can't rely on that, what good is it? None at all.
When services are disrupted, that's when real-time information is more important than ever, and that's also when it is most likely to fail completely and just fall back on scheduled times. NO! I know when the scheduled times are, I can read the bloody timetable, I want you to tell me what's actually happening right now! The system needs to link inbound and outbound workings so that if a bus is approaching its terminus 15 minutes late and was supposed to set off on the next journey 10 minutes ago, the system recognises that that journey is going to be late before the bus sets off. There also needs to be the facility for operators to say that a particular journey has been cancelled and for them to use that facility. The reason that the railway's live timing system works and is useful is because it doesn't just fall over at the first hint of trouble, but actually goes beyond and tells you as much information as it can. I know that level of detail is probably not realistically possible or necessary for buses, but we need something a hell of a lot better than what we're getting at the moment.Isn't real time information operated via satellite tracking? I thought that's what actually made it so useful. If the bus is being tracked by a satellite then surely the info is going to be correct?
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 29, 2013 14:32:16 GMT 1
It depends on whether the bus has a working transponder, the ones which have will be shown as 123 Bus Station 3 minutes whereas the ones which do not will have their timetabled time shown as 123 Bus Station 1008. Some operators seem to better than others.
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Mar 29, 2013 18:29:08 GMT 1
Many operators in WY don't use the system so only ever show timetabled times
|
|
|
Post by driver6540 on Mar 29, 2013 19:14:10 GMT 1
In response to arterriers comments to my previous posting on page 1 of this thread, Firstly I personally would not deny anyone the right to post their opinion on this forum, if thats how you've taken my comments, then i duly apologise. As ive said in many other postings on this( and other) forums it would be pretty dull if we all thought the same way and had the same opinions on everything. Theres nothing wrong in a bit of lively debate, or disagreement or even "banter". Secondly having read and digested your original post on the subject, I feel you have made some valid points and i think i know where you're coming from. However, the main reason i disagree with the idea of the imposition of cashless fares is because it will only benefit the regular bus user/commuter and will remove the flexibility of payment for the ad-hoc/occasional bus user. Now some of you on this forum might think "so what" because its the regular users that keep the operators going anyway, after all regulars are the "bread & butter" clients of the company. But for people like me, who would love to use the bus more often, but cant then i would find paying up front for a journey that i might not make it becomes unattractive does bus travel. (I know no-ones interested), and im sorry to bore you with my own personal circumstances but i work shifts on a 5 over 7 basis, most weeks involve a 4am start on a sunday morning. So it is imperative i have my own transport if only to commute. If a bus operator ran a direct service from the Colne Valley area of Huddersfield to the Dewsbury/Batley area at that time id gladly use it, but i doubt that'll happen in my lifetime. In my late teens WYPTE/YR ran several services in the Huddersfield area with exact fare only boxes (on my route, when i was a regular bus user) and whilst i understand it was introduced to speed up boarding times, it was very unpopular with passengers and phased out relatively quickly after de-reg. I sympathise with regular commuters on a late running bus when someone's faffing about with change further delaying the bus. However i still feel removing the option of how you pay when you board would be a retrograde step, and to my mind when you consider we live in ever increasingly green/eco times, getting people like me out of our cars and onto public transport would be made even harder when you remove the option of how you pay to travel.Its all very well making people pay up front to buy, say a weekly Metrocard or whatever, But if you're only going to use the bus for perhaps, two days then obviously its money wasted, Thats what i base my disagreement on. And i wont change my mind. As always, feel free to disagree or even agree if you want to.
|
|
|
Post by Kenton Schweppes on Mar 29, 2013 21:08:01 GMT 1
Apologies for my defensive response 'driver6540' mate as it seems we have got off on the wrong foot.
I understand the need for an easy method of fare payment for the casual user and I can see the removal of cashless fares may,initially, cause outrage but in the long term it could be good for the transport network. An Oyster style card where a casual user could top up with, say £10, and use at their leisure with no expiry date on, would be a reasonable solution to cashless fares for the infrequent user. Also the introduction of ticket machines at busy stops could be utilised to speed up boarding and improve punctuality. I'm not for one minute suggesting that bus usage becomes 'elitist' for people who buy weekly/monthly/annual tickets, I just think new ideas could be utilised to modernise the current service and network to such an extent that it does become more and more attractive to people to use, this in turn would see and upsurge in patronage, increasing profits, service improvements and everyone is happy. We live in a 24/7 society with modern technology permeating every strand of modern life so there is no reason the public transport network can't utilise modernity.
I too also remember the old correct fare 'traps' operated by Yorkshire Rider buses and I'm not for one minute suggesting that we go back to them days as that would be a step back rather than a step forward.
|
|
|
Post by Kenton Schweppes on Mar 29, 2013 21:20:41 GMT 1
It depends on whether the bus has a working transponder, the ones which have will be shown as 123 Bus Station 3 minutes whereas the ones which do not will have their timetabled time shown as 123 Bus Station 1008. Some operators seem to better than others. This is the main problem, operators operate with a varying array of models of buses,with varying degrees of age. This is why an 'across the board' approach is needed to technology and fleet modernisation. There is no point the big 2, First and Arriva, adopting real time information then smaller operators like Centrebus,Stotts and Tates not using the technology, that's just not good for anyone. This is what's holding back the bus network, the lack of a co-ordinated response to operations, everyone needs to be 'singing form the same hymn sheet' and operating to the same standards set out by Metro. Again, whether this is achieved through a 'partnership' or the much maligned QC's.
|
|
|
Post by Arriva Wakefield on Mar 29, 2013 21:50:20 GMT 1
It depends on whether the bus has a working transponder, the ones which have will be shown as 123 Bus Station 3 minutes whereas the ones which do not will have their timetabled time shown as 123 Bus Station 1008. Some operators seem to better than others. This is the main problem, operators operate with a varying array of models of buses,with varying degrees of age. This is why an 'across the board' approach is needed to technology and fleet modernisation. There is no point the big 2, First and Arriva, adopting real time information then smaller operators like Centrebus,Stotts and Tates not using the technology, that's just not good for anyone. This is what's holding back the bus network, the lack of a co-ordinated response to operations, everyone needs to be 'singing form the same hymn sheet' and operating to the same standards set out by Metro. Again, whether this is achieved through a 'partnership' or the much maligned QC's. About 2/3s of Tates fleet is radio fitted, and think this is the reason why the real time is not yet activated, as some duties are radio fitted buses one day, and non fitted the next, so better to have passengers expecting nothing, than have some passengers expecting real time information daily.
|
|
|
Post by driver6540 on Mar 29, 2013 22:02:11 GMT 1
No need to apologise, arterrier and i have to say you've pretty much got it bang on with your idea of a up front payment system with no expiry date. thats the sort of thing that would entice me onto the buses instead of being under pressure to use a time-limited payment that i would lose out financially by purchasing. Over the years i have spent a fair bit of time in Edinburgh and LRT or Lothian buses.com (as its now known) have introduced a network of bus stops dotted around the city, where you can purchase individual journey tickets at the bus stop, Ive used them and found them to be an ideal solution. The only downside to this might be the security aspect down here, ie the vandals and hooligans we have in a big urban conurbation like West Yorkshire might break into the ticket machines (which they will know, contain cash) on such a regular basis, it could possibly be uneconomic to have them. Another idea may be to have a system like a pay as you go, where bus travel vouchers (like mobile phones) are topped up accordingly, providing there are no strict time limits on usage.All things to consider, and hopefully increase bus patronage. All the best to you, Sir.
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Mar 29, 2013 22:29:30 GMT 1
It should possibly be a requirement of a Metro tender to partake in the YourNextBus system, that would encourage the smaller operators to take part, although it could also force them not to bid and then result in the situation we had before where First are the only bidders for anything with a high price.
This wouldn't solve the issue for the smaller operators that run mainly commercial work though (TJ Walsh, K-Line, Huddersfield Bus Co, M Travel etc)
|
|
158757
Forum Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by 158757 on Mar 30, 2013 2:58:24 GMT 1
I thought it was the ticket machines that provide the tracking (eg the new ones First have, rather than a wayfarer 2 for example!!)
|
|
|
Post by Arriva Wakefield on Mar 30, 2013 8:16:48 GMT 1
I thought it was the ticket machines that provide the tracking (eg the new ones First have, rather than a wayfarer 2 for example!!) The machines send data to the tracker which communicates via the radio system with the satellites.
|
|
|
Post by Kenton Schweppes on Mar 30, 2013 10:26:42 GMT 1
See this is the main problem, First ticket machines include the technology for real time info but non of the other operators do,making the whole system disjointed. Either no one has it or everyone has it, its just pointless one company operating with the technology and the others just doing their own thing. This is why customers and Metro are hacked off with the bus network and expressed a desire for change. Honestly, if a normal business acted like this they would've been put out of business months ago. Its so amateurish and is not good for the network. There is need for a strategy throughout West Yorkshire to set out some objectives to be achieved asap, so what needs to happen is Metro need to develop a plan get all operators round the table, tell them what is expected and needed and see if they can take it forward. Left to their own devices the operators will not quickly implement any changes in unison or quickly enough. The thing is, Metro have set out their expectations and objectives, they're called QC's.
|
|
|
Post by northerner on Mar 31, 2013 16:11:38 GMT 1
Also you can have the situation of a driver sitting waiting for time even though he knows just around the corner there are major roadworks that will cause 10 mins of delays. Passengers will complain about that as well. It would still be unacceptable for a bus to leave early in those circumstances. I have emailed Transdev Keighley a few times about some of their services routinely running early to which their standard, probably pre-typed response is 'human error'. Whilst this may be the case on the odd occasion, it doesn't excuse why the service controllers aren't picking up on it and why the planners aren't rescheduling the services. The other week I was on a 760 service which arrived at a timing point 4 minutes before its due time so the driver pulled up, checked the running board, then departed 2 minutes early anyway and earlier this week I ended up walking as the driver on the half hourly service I was intending to travel on sped past the timing point 3 minutes early
|
|
|
Post by Kenton Schweppes on Mar 31, 2013 18:16:57 GMT 1
Also you can have the situation of a driver sitting waiting for time even though he knows just around the corner there are major roadworks that will cause 10 mins of delays. Passengers will complain about that as well. It would still be unacceptable for a bus to leave early in those circumstances. I have emailed Transdev Keighley a few times about some of their services routinely running early to which their standard, probably pre-typed response is 'human error'. Whilst this may be the case on the odd occasion, it doesn't excuse why the service controllers aren't picking up on it and why the planners aren't rescheduling the services. The other week I was on a 760 service which arrived at a timing point 4 minutes before its due time so the driver pulled up, checked the running board, then departed 2 minutes early anyway and earlier this week I ended up walking as the driver on the half hourly service I was intending to travel on sped past the timing point 3 minutes early How can it be human error, that response is so insulting and patronising. The bus runs to a timetable, stick to it, its not rocket science. If your supposed to leave a timing point at 40 minutes past leave at 40 minutes past not 38 or 39!!! Its just another case of the operators doing their own thing and bugger the passengers. They should be hammering it into the drivers and taking disciplinary action against drivers who run early.
|
|