Pricing
Pricing
(01 Sep 2019, 8:09 pm)streetdeckfan
For me, travelling by bus is way cheaper than it would be in a car, especially with the distance I travel. I pay less for my bus pass than my friends pay for their insurance alone. Sure, it's not as convenient, but if you plan ahead (which I'm particularly bad at), it's not really an issue. Plus, if I need to I can always just get a lift.
The thing is, I'm not necessarily sure they want to increase the number of passengers massively. There is definitely margin to lower prices, but with more passengers comes more vehicles, and drivers, and larger depots and the costs can soon skyrocket.
I think what they've done is set the prices at a specific rate to steadily increase passengers, which is better for shareholders, because if suddenly everyone travels by bus, there's no more room for growth so investors aren't interested.
Surely if numbers are dropping, something needs to be done to arrest that drop? Regardless of how big the demand is or what the market segment is like.
In the old GAG shareholder reports, there are specific objectives about increasing passenger numbers and exploring new markets.
In a growing population and with pressure on motorists to ditch the car, the demand for public transport is only going to get bigger.
It is up to operators to meet that demand and to price it so that it becomes an attractive alternative.
It's basic economics to do so. Bleating on about priority measures is only part of the story.
I've mentioned many times in this very thread that the prices on the 20/20A and now X20 are beyond a joke.
Getting to and from the railway station in Durham by bus for a few days away (business or pleasure) isn't an attractive proposition by bus. Cost and the hike up the hill all point in a negative direction.
I stopped making that journey.
My demand is/was elastic. I've got alternatives which are cheaper.
(01 Sep 2019, 8:09 pm)streetdeckfan
For me, travelling by bus is way cheaper than it would be in a car, especially with the distance I travel. I pay less for my bus pass than my friends pay for their insurance alone. Sure, it's not as convenient, but if you plan ahead (which I'm particularly bad at), it's not really an issue. Plus, if I need to I can always just get a lift.
The thing is, I'm not necessarily sure they want to increase the number of passengers massively. There is definitely margin to lower prices, but with more passengers comes more vehicles, and drivers, and larger depots and the costs can soon skyrocket.
I think what they've done is set the prices at a specific rate to steadily increase passengers, which is better for shareholders, because if suddenly everyone travels by bus, there's no more room for growth so investors aren't interested.
Surely if numbers are dropping, something needs to be done to arrest that drop? Regardless of how big the demand is or what the market segment is like.
In the old GAG shareholder reports, there are specific objectives about increasing passenger numbers and exploring new markets.
In a growing population and with pressure on motorists to ditch the car, the demand for public transport is only going to get bigger.
It is up to operators to meet that demand and to price it so that it becomes an attractive alternative.
It's basic economics to do so. Bleating on about priority measures is only part of the story.
I've mentioned many times in this very thread that the prices on the 20/20A and now X20 are beyond a joke.
Getting to and from the railway station in Durham by bus for a few days away (business or pleasure) isn't an attractive proposition by bus. Cost and the hike up the hill all point in a negative direction.
I stopped making that journey.
My demand is/was elastic. I've got alternatives which are cheaper.
