It’s valued at £4mil and it’s aimed at making bus travel in York more attractive. It’s also targeting delays for bus services in the city, with its notoriously narrow streets. It’s a package bid under the government’s Better Bus Area Fund and, if successful, will include a York version of an oyster card. A paper-based inter-available transfer ticket is apparently in the wings.
Except York has already had one go at making transport more attractive and that included capital funding to ease buses through the city’s narrow streets. It was called FTR but the public didn’t warm to these wider artics and the newer council administration wants to see the back of it.
Indeed, First in York has already committed to axing FTR and its 42-seat Wrightbus Streetcars. This is a decision taken by First on economic grounds though it states it is mindful of York council’s views. The replacements seem to be double decks. On the current FTR 4 service from Acomb to University, these will almost double seating capacity per vehicle and you have to wonder whether this will result in a cost-cutting reduction in frequency. Otherwise, why not a straight swap for 40-seat single decks? Ah, they may actually be less manoeuvrable, with longer wheelbases and rear overhangs.
Different times: the partnership between First & York council
The change will result is the redundancy of 29 staff. These are said to be the conductors on FTR. Not since the 1970s (and, in some cases, early 1980s) has there been conductor redundancies, simply because it was in the 1970s that, for obvious reasons, there were such redundancies! If you follow the logic. Just a thought: if conductors have generated growth, why not deploy them on the double decks?First states that the withdrawn FTRs will be refurbished before finding their way on to another service somewhere in the north. First is tight-lipped about exactly where and it’s little wonder. The eventual home may be just as “welcoming” as was York. Unless First has yet to make a home for them at all.
Does anyone have any suggestions for where the Streetcars might end up?
If my memory serves, First had committed to 100 Streetcars in total. The services got no further than pioneering York plus Leeds and Swansea. We’re unlikely to find any new FTRs on stream and it will prove difficult enough for First to use the ones it already has.
The GoFTR.com website, above, has disappeared. Click it and you get the First UK Bus homepage (but not FirstBus.co.uk)
Wherever York’s vehicles end up, they’ll still need conductors and this appears to be a basic flaw. York’s were designed to be one person operated but the on-board ticketing wasn’t ready. Things have now moved on but there’s still the issue of over-riding or not paying at all. Provincial commercial operators have no London-style feather bed upon which to rest, so must ensure their revenue is guaranteed. If you believe the detractors, non-payment was at epidemic levels on London’s artics. But then again, Londoners paid via widespread use of Oyster… so perhaps, at least in York, this problem might’ve been solved in the end if the bid’s successful. It’ll come too late for the York FTRs, though.Oh, and one other thought. The Competition Commission report majors on inter-availability of ticketing but how will this actually work in practice? A York-wide ticket will always be more expensive than a single operator First York offering.
30 comments:
"if conductors have generated growth, why not deploy them on the double decks?"
Because it confuses people. When this was tried in London, everyone went to pay the driver, who then had to turn them away, taking as much time as it would have taken to just sell a ticket. Pretty much the same as the off-bus ticket machines now; these have IMO lived their course and need removing, and the drivers once again allowing to sell tickets to the tiny number who aren't using Oyster.
"Does anyone have any suggestions for where the Streetcars might end up?"
It won't happen as it's not a First route, but Oxford Road in Manchester would be an ideal target.
"Wherever York’s vehicles end up, they’ll still need conductors"
Not necessarily. If I was deploying on Oxford Road, it'd be with 100% off-bus ticketing and roving revenue squads. Indeed, the problem with London was that TfL cut costs on providing enough of these. If the penalty fare was £50, and you knew you'd get caught once a week for certain, would *you* fare-dodge?
Neil
Swedish airport?
My suggestion for where they could end up is the Chester Park & Ride - on the basis that there are few stops and a flat fare. True, there are some tight corners in the historic city centre, but perhaps not more than in York. A member of staff at each bus stop could collect fares - or the driver could simply leave his cab and do it himself.
"A member of staff at each bus stop could collect fares - or the driver could simply leave his cab and do it himself."
Or (assuming it is a subsidised rather than commercial bus route), charge for the "park" rather than the "ride".
Neil
An interesting, but forgotten, fact is that when York route 4 was converted from double deck to ftr, the frequency was reduced from 8 mins to 10 (and the journey time was extended)
1. Presumably some London conductors were made redundant rather more recently, as the Routemaster left the streets of the capital.
2. FTRs were also used on the Luton Airport - Parkway station shuttle, but I do not know how the fare collection worked (I think there are no intermediate stops).
3. Perhaps all the surplus FTRs (and maybe the ones on Leeds route 4 - I can't see the point of them there either) could end up on the Bristol BRT - though maybe Fareham-Gosport is an alternative.
If you charge to park VAT is applicable.
Went through a host of arguments regarding this a year or so ago when looking to see if free bus pass holders could be charged for the non bus element of P & R (i.e. parking).
"2. FTRs were also used on the Luton Airport - Parkway station shuttle, but I do not know how the fare collection worked (I think there are no intermediate stops)."
They carry conductors, as well as there being a ticket machine at the stop and station. They still use conductors even though it's now a mix of normal bendies and rigid single deckers.
Neil
It's ftr, not FTR ;-)
Perhaps this new route in 'the north' would be better served by using the batch of bendies that First has had parked up in Manchester for three years - they wouldn't need conductors then!
ftr would work on the Leigh - Salford - Manchester busway.
It's within First's territory in North West Manchester, would provide a dedicated track, with no tight corners and will largely feature off-bus ticketing.
Need a full refurb and a new brighter livery tho'
West of England Partnership publicity for the Bristol BRT shows ftr style vehicles. First Bristol however, is quoted in the Bristol Evening Post as preferring to use conventional single deckers if it won the BRT concession.
IMO the surplus ftrs should be retained for a proper BRT scheme with significant dedicated busways. York was a misapplication for these vehicles, and has done much to descredit BRT in the eyes of the public.
Pete
Most likely to end up rotting away somewhere. The accountants at First never write off any asset until it has rusted sufficiently to be down to scrap value.
Who said there had to be a single operator ticket for York? Which European city has single operator tickets?
Just impose the all operator ticket and ban single operator tickets by law.
How do single operator tickets improve integration?
Why are all FTR routes numbered 4? York, Leeds and Swansea.
"Why are all FTR routes numbered 4? York, Leeds and Swansea."
It must be a conspiracy! Watch out anyone living on a First operated 4 route, second hand unwanted ftr's may be coming to a route near you!
Has no one heard of coincidence?
There is a route 4 run by First in *Northampton* - oh dear.
Going off on a tangent a little, I always thought that the idea that ‘ftr would mean anything to anyone was mis-guided. I’m reasonably aware of text speak (my kids use it) including lol, omg, rotfl, dw, brb, gtg, l8r, iirc, afaik, b4, gr8 and a whole host of others, but I’ve never seen any message from anyone to anyone with ftr in it! Maybe bus companies, rather like forty-something dads, shouldn’t try to be cool and down with the kids!
The reason for having an all-operator ticket is because it will lower the barrier to entry for competition, and reduce costs (or increase flexibility) for a significant number of passengers.
Let's say you want to make a cross-city journey from Copmanthorpe to Clifton Moor. Between Copmanthorpe and York, you have a choice between First (every half hour) and Transdev (every 15–30 minutes). Between York and Clifton Moor, it's First or nothing. That means anyone making that journey and paying for it is likely to use First for both legs of the journey, even though Transdev may be more convenient for one half. People aren't going to want to pay two separate fares that will probably come to about £6 for a return journey when they can get a FirstDay for £3.70. On the other hand, they might pay £4 for the extra convenience and flexibility of an all-operator ticket.
Likewise, someone travelling from Fulford into York and back (a similar situation applies on almost any other main corridor) has a choice between First, Arriva and Transdev, in roughly equal measure. At the moment, paying passengers are effectively restricted to returning with the same operator they travelled out on. With a new multi-operator ticket, they get the extra flexibility to use any bus out and any bus back.
So that's the benefit for passengers. What about the benefits for competition? At the moment, there is precious little "active" competition¹ with First in the city – it only really exists between the city and the university, although arguably the route to Ashley Park would count as well. Part of the reason for this is because First have the market pretty well sewn up, but part of it is because paying passengers are less likely to desert the dominant operator for a minor player if that then restricts the flexibility to make multi-leg or even simple return journeys.
¹ I'm differentiating between "passive" competition² where there are routes that happen to coincide, eg First's services along the Hull Road coincide with EYMS's interurban services to Pocklington, Hull and Bridlington, but you couldn't say they were actively competing, because they are serving different markets.
² OK, I may have made those terms up, but I'm sure you can understand what I mean.
I'm intrigued by the report in the York Press that 'five “bus interchanges” would be created at Stonebow, Piccadilly, the Theatre Royal, Rougier Street/Station Road and the railway station, with “real-time” electronic information boards and better timetable and map displays. The proposals also include easing the path through the city for services.'
There isn't a great deal they could do to speed up journey times through the CC without dragging motorists out kicking and screaming, and likewise you have to wonder what the point is of having several "interchanges" in such a small area - unless it's a coded way of saying that all other stops will be ripped out?
"Maybe bus companies, rather like forty-something dads, shouldn’t try to be cool and down with the kids!"
Absolutely. Bus companies should just try to look professional and run a good service. That's what people want.
Neil
I always considered that the Wright Street-cars would be more suited to long runs on segregated sections of busway.
With a little modification of the route, this could have been achieved here in Portsmouth with the Zip41, although this uses non-segregated bus lanes, but I believe that First are committed to the buses they run on there for another 2 years.
A nearby development in Fareham, the BRT, would however be a more likely candidate. One of the routes runs a fairly un-taxing route through Gosport to a 5 mile stretch of completely new busway. The downside is that it then approaches Fareham town centre, where the streetcars would get stuck.
Portsmouth and Southsea seafront maybe?
For me, aside from the fact that they were run by First (Worst)with all that the old business stood for, the rot set in immediately it was announced that the drivers were to be referred to as pilots. Absolute twaddle. The whole thing was an expensive, not-sufficiently-thought-through gimmick. But I will humbly acknowledge that it was very brave of First to try.
Ban single operator tickets by law??!
What, so if you do only want to travel on one operator's services, you have to pay more. For the privilege of using other operator's services you're not actually going to use?
Great idea...
Neil at 1034.
Great changes and improvements in what is offered are not achieved without trying new stuff out once in a while.
There's no positive future developments to be discovered from "just try[ing] to look professional and run a good service."
Granted, looking professional and running a good service is definitely required, but there's far more to it than that.
For example, shall bus operators not trial smart card ticketing, and instead "just" run a 'good' service as they do currently with cash fares...?
Why bother trying any innovations out at all with that mentality?
"Ban single operator tickets by law??!
What, so if you do only want to travel on one operator's services, you have to pay more. For the privilege of using other operator's services you're not actually going to use?
Great idea..."
Have you ever been to Germany?
If all tickets were valid on all operators' services, there would be no need for them to be any more expensive than paying the cost of the scheme. Each operator would still get the same amount of money based on who travelled, just like they do on the railway, where most tickets are interavailable.
Yes, it'd remove on-road competition. But on-road competition is a fallacy anyway. The real competition is the car.
Neil
"Granted, looking professional and running a good service is definitely required, but there's far more to it than that.
For example, shall bus operators not trial smart card ticketing, and instead "just" run a 'good' service as they do currently with cash fares...?
Why bother trying any innovations out at all with that mentality?"
I was referring to looking tacky, not to not innovating.
Stagecoach, and perhaps even more so Trent Barton, both look slick and professional, while also being quite innovative, Trent particularly so.
Trying to be "down with the kids" (or whatever it's called these days) always, always looks cringeworthily embarrassing, not impressive.
So what "ftr" should have been is (other than a real tram):- bendy buses, yes. Quality seating, yes. Off-bus ticketing, yes. Different livery, yes (I believe someone who posts here is quite good at doing those :) ). Negotiation with the Council for quality publicity and traffic priority, absolutely.
But stupid name, and trying to pretend a bus isn't a bus? Absolutely not.
Neil
To add to that - the term is "conductor", not "customer service host".
Just as everyone knows that "the customer services department" is in reality the complaints department.
And just like it's the "guard" or the "ticket inspector" on a train, not the "train manager".
Silly titles like that insult passengers' intelligence and are just seen through and laughed at.
Neil
It's only a name.
Is "ftr" as a name really perceived any differently to Trent Barton's "swift", "villager", "harlequin" and "pronto", or some of Stagecoach's gems such as "Kite", "Scoot" and "Yo-Yo"?
(and I'm talking about the perception of the name, not the overall scheme).
Besides - yes, ftr wasn't a real success in York. But, if it hadn't been tried in York, would it be running in Swansea. Swansea, where "ftr" and its vehicles are successful?
@Neil:
If all tickets were valid on all operators' services, there would be no need for them to be any more expensive than paying the cost of the scheme. Each operator would still get the same amount of money based on who travelled, just like they do on the railway, where most tickets are interavailable.
That depends. If you assume that people will buy their first ticket of the day on the various companies in the same proportion that they will use them later on then all companies keep the revenue they take from selling tickets as their fair take of fares. But that would be an incredibly easy system to game – unscrupulous companies could flood the morning peaks with buses so they get the vast majority of the income, and then not bother for the rest of the day.
That means that the only really fair way to manage the revenue stream is to have some sort of central clearing house that takes all the income in and redistributes it fairly among operators. That process will cost money, which has to come from somewhere.
And would this mean that operators couldn't set their own fares? In which case there would again have to be a central office setting fares for all routes by all operators – the scope for cost escalation, not to mention delivery problems, is immense. Consider this – some operators are able to run much more marginal services, by having lower running costs and using cheaper vehicles. It's hard to see how operators like that could continue under a model of standard fares.
Regards the Leigh - Salford - Manchester busway: a good suggestion, but TfGM are supposedly looking for Euro V compliant vehicles, which I don't think the ftr is.
Post a Comment