please empty your brain below
Great minds almost think alike DG. I was going to pop down from Peterborough yesterday afternoon for a gander, only to find the last return journey left Huntingdon at 4.30pm. Having 'operator specific' tickets seems utter folly to me.

NLW | 08.08.11 - 9:16 a.m. | #

NLW - unfortunately operator specific tickets is exactly how the rest of the UK's buses run! Some don't even give change...

Madness? Totally. But there you go. These are commercial bus services, not tendered ones like we have in London. And commercial bus services have their own rules.

Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 08.08.11 - 9:48 a.m. | #

Proper white elephant indeed. A rail-based scheme would have been i) cheaper, ii) running by now, and iii) integrated into the national rail network.

THC | 08.08.11 - 10:27 a.m. | #

Did you happen to meet a man with seven wives?

ian | 08.08.11 - 10:32 a.m. | #

iii) Considerably less useful for getting to the centre of Cambridge
iv) Infinitely more expensive to run
v) Wouldn't run at 10 minute frequencies at any time of day

Graham | 08.08.11 - 10:45 a.m. | #

'Momentous' waste of money (but good for those of us who make a living out of construction disputes!) I wasn't aware of the different operators not accepting each others tickets - they've surely had long enough to work out a revenue-sharing arrangement ! After all, how do they 'compete' on a single carriageway bus lane ?

Paul | 08.08.11 - 11:30 a.m. | #

My village has a half-hourly bus service to the nearest Town. Well, it does on paper. Actually, it's two well-timed hourly routes.

They used to be run by the same operator, so buy a ticket on one and you could return on any bus you chose.

Now they are run by different operators so although there is a 30 minute return service, I don't have access to that on a return ticket as each operator does not accept the other's fares.

Frankly, it winds me up when I hear Londoners objecting to the audacity of having to wait UP TO 12 MINUTES for a bus - if they knew how lucky they are to have a fully integrated and controlled bus network they wouldn't moan nearly as much.

Lewis | 08.08.11 - 3:33 p.m. | #

Oh, I think they probably would :)

RogerW | 08.08.11 - 5:21 p.m. | #

I'm originally from Manchester and have travelled across the UK on trains and buses (I don't have a car) and one of my pet gripes is also people who never travel by public transport outside the capital but always complain about it. I think an understanding of how things run elsewhere does people good.

But still, 12 minutes for a bus?

Well I once explained to someone one reason why people in London are likely to tut when they find out the next tube will be 3-4 minutes away, and the explanation is applicable for the bus too - it's simple. By the time that bus or tube gets to that person it will be so rammed that they won't be able to get on it!

There is also a fundamental difference between most buses in London and those outside - London routes generally are a metro turn up and go service. There is no timetable published. You really do just turn up and go. Outside London you have a timetable and you know when your bus is. You plan. With the exception of a few routes in with low frequencies, that doesn't happen in London.

Thankfully bus deregulation never happened in London. It nearly did, but we were saved from the lunacy of it. Unfortunately we were the only ones :(

Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 08.08.11 - 5:30 p.m. | #

I think there are Londoners who are perfectly aware that you can wait 30 minutes for a bus. There are any number of routes which run at that frequency in the London network plus others that run late and give you a 30 minute wait anyway!

This is no different to the fact that there are plenty of commercial routes outside of London which run at high frequency just like London ones do. You learn to adjust if you are using low frequency services.

I'd also gently point out that every London route does have a timetable. What else does I-Bus use to compare with actual running time to tell the driver if he is early or late? All the timetables are on the excellent London Bus Routes website even though TfL don't typically publish them.

PC | 08.08.11 - 9:02 p.m. | #

As I said PC, "there is no timetable published"! I don't class London Bus Routes as an official timetable source.

And yes, whilst there is one, as it says on London Bus Routes site for high frequency services "controllers will endeavour to provide an even service rather than necessarily adhering exactly to the times shown".

No passenger is going to worry about a timetable in London if they're on a high frequency route.

Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 08.08.11 - 9:06 p.m. | #

What is the point of the "guided" bit? Why didn't they just make it a bus-only road? It added a hell of a lot to the cost for no benefit. If a bus catches up one at the stop it can't overtake when it's in the guide. Also if a bus breaks down what happens then?

Jon Combe | 08.08.11 - 10:29 p.m. | #

*sigh*

This has been going on since I left my birth town of Cambridge 8 years ago.

It's a shit system, it always was, it's poorly designed, it's poorly made and it's not that helpful to that many people.

Yet they still built it.

Kirk | 08.08.11 - 10:50 p.m. | #

"Unfortunately we were the only ones :("

Apart from the Northern Irish.

But, yes, with that exception,I quite agree. The way buses operate and are (un)regulated outside of Greater London is sheer lunacy.

Dominic | 08.08.11 - 11:03 p.m. | #

The system in Adelaide, known as the O-Bhan, is bloody brilliant. It has been one of the state's planning successes and has cut journey times to the outer suburbs by 30-45 minutes. It has also resulted in increased use of public transport through interchanges with plenty of parking and feeder buses meeting buses coming off the guided busway. There is more flexibility for suburban services than rail can allow (because bus routes can be easily changed, rail can't) and the system has grown with time. The buses can travel faster and more safely than on bus-only roads. Sometimes there are breakdowns, and these are a pain, but the buses are usually fairly quickly towed. Maybe it was, or wasn't, the best choice for Cambridgeshire, but it certainly was for Adelaide. The journey is beautiful too, with views of a reservoir, the hills, a creek and parklands. For nearby residents it is also quieter than a rail-line. Adelaide is serviced by a few private operators, but the ticketing system is integrated. In short, maybe a poor choice for that area, exacerbated by a dodgy ticketing system, but busways are not automatically poor public transport choices.

Antipodean | 09.08.11 - 4:28 a.m. | #

Thanks for sharing, Antipodean. Very interesting to read of the Adelaide experience.

THC | 09.08.11 - 4:57 p.m. | #

Please tell me that you didn't have a Jobsworth driver who, on the first day of a new service and on a Sunday morning, would not wait for a couple of passengers ('customers') to buy a ticket.....!
No wonder this country is revolting !

Paul | 09.08.11 - 10:04 p.m. | #

It is sad that instead of the transportation projects could be very useful it is run out of time and budget. By the way your blog is really great!

Mayjex | 10.08.11 - 4:53 a.m. | #

The point of the 'guided' bit is that the buses can drive closer together (width ways) Remember, it used to be a train line, so they're repurposing an existing route and not building something new.

By having the buses run closer together, they then free up space for a nice wide cycle/walking track beside the busway. Only downside is that there is no barrier between the 60mph buses and people on the footpath. Recently they've discovered that's a bad thing as several people have died by being struck by buses.

For everyone who asks "Why didn't they just re-open the railway": An insider told me once that if the council tried to do that, the government would block them.

Jon Jones | 02.10.22 - 8:54 a.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy