|
MP Travel
|
|
||||||
|
RE: MP Travel
Express routes are now rare due to your passing customers along routes. The X1 missed out called at the airport and Liverpool South parkway. Adding more stops may of saved the route for hospital users but would of added time. Routes now that should get tenders should be ones that max out the number of areas covered not the speed. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
RE: MP Travel
(22/09/2021 12:57)knutstransport Wrote: Question is whether they lost more passengers through the reduced frequency than they gained through the all-day extension, or whether the extension increased ticket sales but they couldn't pay for the disruption caused by vandalism. Don’t know but the story in one of the local rags highlighted the fact it’s constantly dogged with operational issues. Can’t have helped the passenger numbers. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
RE: MP Travel
(22/09/2021 15:31)Mrboo Wrote: Express routes are now rare due to your passing customers along routes. The X1 missed out called at the airport and Liverpool South parkway. Adding more stops may of saved the route for hospital users but would of added time. Routes now that should get tenders should be ones that max out the number of areas covered not the speed. A route is only supposed to go out to tender the local authorities or PTE identifies it's needed for essential reasons like employment, medical appointments, shopping, education etc. and there isn't a suitable alternative. What happens in reality varies between areas. TfGM seem to put routes out to tender for short term contracts when there are direct alternatives, possibly because they need time to establish exactly who is using the service or operators want time to make a decision on whether they'll run a commercial replacement. Other local authorities don't put routes out to tender even when the alternative involves a change between a train and bus, despite no integrated ticketing. I suppose in remote areas an express service could be deemed as essential due to being a great distance from employment sites, meaning an all-stops would not be a viable option for commuting. However, Runcorn and Liverpool aren't rural. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
RE: MP Travel
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv...b-21636042 Quote:"We announced yesterday to passengers we are looking to terminate the service this Saturday due to the following three main reasons:It's not all about passenger numbers. Mainly the driver shortage. funding issues with the Covid bus grant stopping and the Runcorn yobs. Passenger numbers shot up quickly with the route change which is really interesting and goes to show that the reduction and route change was needed. Not many routes do you reduce the PVR, extend the route and end up significantly better off. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
RE: MP Travel
(22/09/2021 17:44)iMarkeh Wrote: Passenger numbers shot up quickly with the route change which is really interesting and goes to show that the reduction and route change was needed. Not many routes do you reduce the PVR, extend the route and end up significantly better off. Nowhere in the quote from the MP Travel owner does it say passenger numbers improved as a result of the 'emergency timetable' he refers to. Funding issues might relate to how many of the passengers are pass holders or are eligible for discounted travel as well. More passengers doesn't automatically mean more revenue. That is if the rumour of increased usage is true. The article also quotes MP Mike Amesbury who says about operators giving up on routes if they don't make enough profit from them. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
RE: MP Travel
(22/09/2021 12:47)Mayneway Wrote: I was under the impression it was tendered to Arriva and Arriva sub contracted it to MP until the end of the tender because of a shortage of drivers. The tender was awarded to Warringtons own buses, but MP registered it commercially cancelling out the subsidised service, 9 months later they withdraw it leaving passengers wondering if it’s going to be tendered out again. Seen it time and time again, when operators register a service commercially when another wins a tender, begs the question that either the operator in question doesn't want the winning operator on its territory or the service should stand on its own 2 feet and doesn't need public money to subsidise it. I've had it good authority one of the big operators approached an independent to buy them out, the independent refused, the big operator then threatened to register all of the smaller operators tendered services commercially, thus putting the little guy off the road. The sooner services are run for the benefit of passengers and the greater good the better |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
RE: MP Travel
(22/09/2021 19:54)1466 Wrote: Seen it time and time again, when operators register a service commercially when another wins a tender, begs the question that either the operator in question doesn't want the winning operator on its territory or the service should stand on its own 2 feet and doesn't need public money to subsidise it. It does make you wonder whether it was a case of sour grapes. The big main operator wins the contract off the smaller independent so the independent registers it commercially to have the last laugh. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
RE: MP Travel
(22/09/2021 20:02)thomasl1231 Wrote: After driving the actual buses the passenger numbers have definitely increased since the changes So it hasn’t been cancelled due to low passenger numbers?? It’s strange as the owner gives that as one of the reasons yet you as the driver is saying differently. I’m confused. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
RE: MP Travel
(22/09/2021 23:47)Mayneway Wrote: So it hasn’t been cancelled due to low passenger numbers?? Nothing to be confused about mate, as I’ve said in previous posts, they have increased but not increased enough. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)