When in our “Projections: 2012” post of 3rd January we stated that for FTR,
“York decides on a public competition to design a dual-staircase signature replacement double deck, known as the New Bus for York but dubbed the Yorkie Bar or Yorkmaster”we were, of course, being ironic. But the five year agreement between York council and First does, nevertheless, end in June, after which the council wishes to rid the streets of the FTR. It was a manifesto commitment of the incoming council that replaced the FTR-friendlier one. Removal of FTR is easier said than done, though.
This is because this isn’t in the council’s gift. The agreement might be ending but that doesn’t mean the vehicles will. There’s no revenue subsidy for the FTR and the decision’s one for First and not the council. First could—and certainly will—continue using FTRs until it’s comfortable with any alternative and that’s still at the discussion stage, AFAIK. And, there are enough spare articulated buses parked up awaiting a new home without adding York’s FTRs. What else do you do with a dozen or so Streetcars that carry the additional problem of requiring double crews, anyway?
There’s no doubt that FTR continues to be hugely unpopular in York, after a very difficult start. Like everything else regarding the bus service, most of the reasons cited by FTR detractors are nonsense, don’t stack up or are said out of prejudice or ignorance. Things like:- The roads are too narrow for FTR: both forward and trailing wheelbases are better than a 12m bus
- They damage the roads: FTR’s weight is carried over three, not two, axles
- They inconvenience motorists: by seconds, perhaps. And by not as much as the congestion caused were their occupants to take to their cars
- Drivers are inconsiderate to bicyclists: but it’s unwise for any anarchic cyclists to under-take any articulated vehicle, heavy or bus.
To the issues mentioned above, add the fact that, since FTR, there has been growth on service 4 University to Acomb (though First is being coy about by how much). Some of that growth has been down to a friendly and welcomed group of “customer hosts” (conductors, to you and me). These, you will recall, were a hasty addition to FTR following the too-early implementation of on-board ticket equipment. If demand is strong and stacks up, could the 4 cope with conventional buses at the current frequency or would it need more? Double decks may be an option but this reduces the low floor area and ability to carry more buggies. If more, that would increase the fleet strength and the number of buses on York’s streets and it may therefore be better to continue with the FTRs. But, here, the problem becomes less transparent than a dozen or so purple 60-footers.Going back to conventional buses will no doubt mean redundancy for the conductors and possibly a resultant tail off in demand. I just wonder whether First can justify double crewing. It’s already single crewed using conventional buses during the evenings and Sundays.
And the remaining question relates to the artics on park & ride. If FTR is deemed unacceptable, will these, too, have to yield? I don’t recall any issues reported upon the introduction of “ordinary” artics in York, though.
19 comments:
"And, there are enough spare articulated buses parked up awaiting a new home without adding York’s FTRs. What else do you do with a dozen or so Streetcars that carry the additional problem of requiring double crews, anyway?"
Send some of them back to the Luton Airport Parkway shuttles, where they double-crew anyway?
Sorry, perhaps I'm being thick but what is the 'agreement' with the Council? The two Omnibuses articles suggest it's a commercial service, so where does the council get a say?
As an aside, there clearly is an issue with ftrs generally as hadn't First committed to buying 100 of them, which they haven't even got close to after 5 years?
Usual First Group (at that time) - come up with a fresh idea, even if others think it slightly odd or mad.
Regardless of outcome, lose interest and not pursue the original plans.
Anonymous said...
"Sorry, perhaps I'm being thick but what is the 'agreement' with the Council? The two Omnibuses articles suggest it's a commercial service, so where does the council get a say?"
I'm sure that the Council provided some infrastructure enhancements to cater for FTR, so presumably the agreement covers that which First provides in return (amongst other possibilities). However, I cannot really imagine that the Council will want to 'undo' the infrastructure enhancements.
As far as the number of FTRs goes, I had an idea that the order was for about 35-40, with options for more (up to the quoted figure of 100). Could it be that the problems with fare collection have put a stop to the programme?
Could smartcard ticketing allow it to make a return? Or do people just prefer buses where you can talk to the driver (for security reasons as well) - you can still take ticketing off the bus and speed it up.
That being the case, I think Trent Barton/Stenning are closer to the idea of a "future bus" than ftr is.
Neil
Anonymous 1319 said...
"Usual First Group (at that time) - come up with a fresh idea, even if others think it slightly odd or mad.
Regardless of outcome, lose interest and not pursue the original plans."
Very true but you'd think they'd try to push the envelope just that little further and consider routes that aren't numbered 4. LOL!!
It is a pity their has been so much politics in this. The Lib Dems were keen to have ftrs in York and encouraged First toi introduce them. Now Labour does not want them. It shows how franchising would was taxpayers money big time. Some cyclists have lied about the dangers. I would prefer a higher frequency of posh conventional buses, but ftr should have been tried and I am certain First will find them a good route to work on.
ftr was always an initiative aimed at raising awareness of public transport in the city as an alternative to some car journeys. 'Normal' buses are just part of street furniture, while the ftrs 'stand out'. That was a message fully understood by the earlier administration, but clearly not by the current one. It's disappointing to see a council such as York - one which should be forward thinking in its outlook - fail to recognise the potential of using ftrs to lead the debate over modal shift. Clearly the will just isn't there - and as I say, that's disappointing and sad.
Cant help feeling this yet another Shakespeare job.Much ado about nothing.
"ftr was always an initiative aimed at raising awareness of public transport in the city as an alternative to some car journeys. 'Normal' buses are just part of street furniture, while the ftrs 'stand out'."
Yet I'd rather see a bus service that was considered part of the city's infrastructure - and was run as such.
So, all the dedicated infrastructure and priority (a bus rarely waits in traffic in a German city), but normal buses, with a professional-looking, understated livery, perhaps with the city's crest on them.
The story of the FTR in York is a funny one. I think it basically comes down to the fact that First made such a pig's ear of introducing it that the brand was immediately tarnished and that there's no way back for it.
When FTR was introduced the ticket machines didn't work, the barcode scanners didn't work and, as a result, queues were horrendous. It could take twenty minutes to get on a bus. It was a fiasco and the people of York- already sick to the back teeth of First's repeated mileage cuts and large fare rises in the city- have not forgotten or forgiven First for it. Many people see it as a giant white elephant that they're paying a fortune for.
A wider general issue is that the Wright Streetcar is essentially an appalling bus. Based on the same Volvo chassis as the Eclipse Fusion it shouldn't be, but there's too much clutter inside it and not enough seating. Tram styling might work on specialist routes- they'd be brilliant on the Cambridge to Addenbrooke guided busway, for example- but on narrow tight streets it doesn't work at all.
Go North East looked at buying Streetcars for their X66 service in 2007, but decided to stick with their Solar Fusions mixed with rigid single deckers. Given that they've recently taken on a load of ex-London Citaro artics for that service and a couple of others in Gateshead, I think that says a lot.
I think they look silly, and people see through the fact that they are not a tram.
With the right infrastructure, a normal bendy bus with off-bus ticketing (e.g. smartcards) is the way to go, IMO. But the infrastructure is key.
If First York were able to say "your bus won't get stuck in a traffic queue - guaranteed", as can be said of many German routes because of sensible infrastructure design, that's worth a lot more than a bit of fancy bodywork that now IMO looks rather dated.
The interior is of course another matter - but you can do that how you like. The Cambs Busway buses look like normal buses from outside, but have a high quality interior.
The big differences between P&R services and the FTR are in the nature of the route.
The P&R buses run from the edge of town straight into the city centre (the only exception is the Rawcliffe route, which winds through a housing estate, but the narrower roads are one-way so it fits through comfortably), whereas the FTR runs down narrow residential streets. You can see the route here: g.co/maps/59hec. Zoom into GSV on roads like Heslington Road, Eason View and Green Lane, and you'll see why these roads are not suitable for an 18m artic bus.
Add to that, the P&R buses rarely stop between the car park and the city centre, whereas the FTR calls at every stop, taking up a lot of road space when doing so. This does cause disruption to other traffic, and while it isn't huge in the grand scheme of things, it's unnecessary.
I don't buy the argument that 18m bendies are every bit as manoeuvrable as 12m standard buses. My experience of watching buses around York over the last few years is that there are some situations where they are fine, such as going round a roundabout, but there are others where they can't fit through gaps that a regular B7RLE sails through, particularly things like wiggling between a stopped vehicle and a traffic island or vehicle going the other way, where you have to snake through. Either the drivers are all too cautious, or the buses just don't fit. Either way, it does cause unnecessary congestion.
@Anonymous 2012-01-09 10:53
The agreement with the council was that the council paid approx £1.5m to various road improvements, such as providing off-street parking and then yellow-lining the main carriageway, widening at bends (despite the oft-repeated mantra that bendies are just as manoeuvrable as any other bus) and so on, to allow these monsters to fit down unsuitable residential streets. First had to commit to using the Purple People Eaters for at least 5 years as part of the deal, although it turns out that that only applies Mon–Sat daytimes.
Neil said...
"(a bus rarely waits in traffic in a German city).."
That perception is probably reasonably accurate, but don't forget that most large and many medium-sized cities have more extensive rail-based networks (tram, U-Bahn, S-Bahn) than in the UK, and those generally cater for the busiest routes.
"That perception is probably reasonably accurate, but don't forget that most large and many medium-sized cities have more extensive rail-based networks (tram, U-Bahn, S-Bahn) than in the UK, and those generally cater for the busiest routes."
Oh, true. But I'm pretty sure most of it is due to sensible infrastructure design. And that doesn't mean vast swathes of road given over to bus lanes. It means sensible dedicated lanes and overtaking points at most junctions, for instance, and stops being in logical places with regard to traffic lights, thus avoiding the "double delay" of stopping for passengers then stopping again at lights.
It'd be hard to get London there, as the bus network is such a dense web, but in other cities it should be perfectly possible - and it'd cause far less car delay than the way the UK tends to approach it, too.
Neil said...
"... and it'd cause far less car delay than the way the UK tends to approach it, too."
I think the problem in this respect is political. In practice bus priorities often benefit all forms of traffic, and not just buses - for example, after the M4 bus lane was opened, the average speed of all traffic actually increased. But the perception of motorists was that they were being delayed by buses which were given priority, and some politicians play on misconceptions such as this. Hence the closure of the M4 bus lane (though I believe it will be reinstated for the duration of the Olympics, which perhaps tells its own story!) and the motorists think they will benefit. Essentially, the problem is a lack of political consensus on priority for public transport, which does exist in Germany, certainly to some extent. Unfortunately, as some other posts on this blog have demonstrated, this consensus does not seem to exist in the UK.
Some of the tram stops in Freiburg are laid out immediately adjacent to traffic lights, and the trams have priority, thus avoiding the 'double stop' that Neil refers to. Since the stops for both directions are on the same side of the traffic lights, it is the priority that is crucial - but that is also possible for buses. It is also a cheap and effective form of assistance to public transport, and arguably a more effective use of the money than direct revenue subsidy, in that public transport is actually improved.
"It is also a cheap and effective form of assistance to public transport, and arguably a more effective use of the money than direct revenue subsidy, in that public transport is actually improved."
And it effectively doubles up to give revenue subsidy, as with the priority in place, PVRs can be reduced (or reliability increased, or both) and so operating costs are reduced.
The one thing that would be needed to make it more common in the UK would be, I think, a small change in the law to allow tram signals to apply to buses as they do in Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland (and others). Otherwise, traffic light islands seem to be required, which adds to the cost and may be hard to fit in. Time for a campaign along those lines from the bus operators?
Living in York, I have to comment on this.
(1 of 2)
Back in the mid-late 1990's, Rider York (as it was then known, but was under Firstbus control by that point) ordered two Scania L113 Wright Access Ultralows to similar specs for those used on Park and Ride work, which were incredibly popular (and have only really been matched by the Citaro's now operating)... these two L113's were put in ordinary fleet colours and used on 4 normal routes: the 1 (same as the current route 1), the 3 (now the 5, going to Beckfield Lane but via the A59), the 12, and the 4. Sadly these buses were withdrawn after just 6 months, and the information as to this withdrawl was due to them "being too large for the city's streets". And what does York have now? 17.95m long Wright Streetcars, that are slightly wider than the old L113's as well as longer, but have less seating capacity than the Optare Versa's used by Coastliner (and also some Solo's and Dennis Darts). There is a roundabout in Acomb that is on a slant - the FTR has got stuck there a few times, being grounded on the centre of the roundabout; it caused trouble at the Blossom Street junction by taking up two lanes of traffic that the council redesigned the junction; and they still occaisionally take corners badly in Acomb's small streets. The FTR's are the heaviest single deck buses in York's fleet, and a lot of the roads that were fully resurfaced in preparation for the FTR are having to be redone. There is a reason why First does not operate the Streetcars on evenings or sundays: because they consume too much fuel for them to be economically viable on these journeys with lesser passengers... so if this is "the future of public transport" then we will be seeing bus services with massive vehicles having not enough seats that don't run after 6pm or on sundays.
As a cyclist, I have experienced having the FTR pass me on numerous occaisions. I am an experienced cyclist who can cycle 80 miles in 8 hours and so can cope with the hectic pace around York - but the FTR's are so wide that they have to pass too close to cycles, and I even had one overtake me on the corner of Queen Street near York Rail Station (the corner is on a bridge) when there was a Wright Crusader coming the other way, and I was forced onto the pavement as the back end of the trailer unit almost sideswiped me.
(2 of 2)
Then we get to the issue that surrounded the University East expansion. For two years, the university tried to get a deal with First that the Uni would offer subsidy if First run the FTR on an extended route to the new campus and offer free travel between that campus and the Heslington one - and First didn't want to know. The University got an agreement with York Pullman instead to run service 44, and First threw a tantrum over it. But all of a sudden, First was then somehow able to extend the FTR route to Heslington East anyway... but this required one additional vehicle. Was it a new streetcar? nope, just a B7RLE Eclipse cascaded from the failed 'bully transdev yorkshire coastliner off the most profitable part of their route, between leeds and york' X64 service that was painted into FTR colours and nicknamed the 'baby FTR' and with no customer service host... remeber, this is supposedly the "future of public transport".
I have touched on capacity above, each FTR vehicle having less seats than an Optare Versa or Dennis Dart, both buses taking up only half the road space of a Streetcar. On a tram, having high number of standees generally works because journeys are often only 10-15 minutes, and the trams are confined to rails and so don't suddenly swerve, lunge around, or brake sharply. There have been st least 3 occaisions whereby an FTR had standees on board and the bus braked sharply, causing at least one standee to fall to the floor and break their arm - though there have been more occaisions where FTR standees have falled but not broken limbs... although before the days of FTR, it was a commonly held belief that you could travel on a bus without breaking your arm either by falling or having the doors close on you. And that was another failing in York - because the FTR was given publicity of it being 'like a tram', people believed they could push the door open buttons to open the doors. But on so doing, the doors would open but would then immediately close, which has caused injury. Instead of fitting safety sensors above the doors (as are present on the W---DWX Wright Eclipse Fusion for the rear doors) all First did was stick stickers above the buttons saying "emergency use only - £200 fine formisuse"... I can't help but wonder that if there was an emergency and the bus was on fire, that the buttons would be pressed and the doors would open then immediately shut on the persons trying to escape.
As much as I like buses, the FTR is a failed concept that was fundamentally flawed from day one. The only routes that can sustain articulated vehicles in York are the Park and Ride routes (or if the number 4 was split, then the Heslington to city centre portion), but the FTR doesn't have enough seating capacity for that. I say take them to the Airports and use them there, or keep them in depots in large cities for use on local Rail Replacement services and fit them with bike racks (such as those Wrightbus built for America) so that rail passengers with luggage and/or a bike can actually use the replacement bus.
Post a Comment