How would you improve transport in Bristol?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Every 15 minutes is a sweet spot as it gives people good connections with the national rail network from their local station...........A fifteen minute service interval means you should be able to make a reasonable connection, be it to local or more distant destinations.

Obviously a higher frequency would be even better..!

I'd regard every 20 minutes as a "turn up and go" rail service frequency but perhaps I'm in a minority there.  Don't get me wrong here, I'm even more in favour of 4tph but if operationally, 3 tph can be achieved significantly earlier then I'd say such a line had achieved "metro service frequency".

A 20 minute frequency leads to timetable complications where it has to share a line / resource with a half hourly service.    Not saying "good" or "bad" - just saying.  Personally, I would love even an hourly service each way at my local station - but whilst we are part of the WECA^» (West of England Combined Authority - about) commuter area, I can't really say "IN Bristol" which this thread is about.

[Bmblbzzz]

If the British motor industry suddenly bursts back into life, Dan's Vans could be Norrises Morrises.

I can't say I'm very impressed by the level of preparedness of Savage's Scammells, or WestLINK as we should get used to calling the WECA^» (West of England Combined Authority - about) DRT service. It starts in April 2023, but the website can't give a map of the areas of operation (zones) and you can't get the app yet. Doesn't bode well.

No service after 7pm and none at all on Sundays doesn't look too good either.

[johnneyw]

Every 15 minutes is a sweet spot as it gives people good connections with the national rail network from their local station...........A fifteen minute service interval means you should be able to make a reasonable connection, be it to local or more distant destinations.

Obviously a higher frequency would be even better..!

I'd regard every 20 minutes as a "turn up and go" rail service frequency but perhaps I'm in a minority there.  Don't get me wrong here, I'm even more in favour of 4tph but if operationally, 3 tph can be achieved significantly earlier then I'd say such a line had achieved "metro service frequency".

A 20 minute frequency leads to timetable complications where it has to share a line / resource with a half hourly service.

Ah yes, I have to admit that this aspect hadn't occurred to me.  Sometimes it seems that intermediate steps to increased service frequency are a bit more complicated than they at first appear. 
I do wonder though, if there is any broad consensus on what the travelling public consider to be a "turn up and go" frequency.

[IndustryInsider]

I do wonder though, if there is any broad consensus on what the travelling public consider to be a "turn up and go" frequency.

I would say every 15 minutes would be my personal definition.  However, if you live in London, I suspect most people would consider 5 minutes to be the minimum.  "What?  There isn't another one for quarter of an hour?!"

[Bmblbzzz]

I do wonder though, if there is any broad consensus on what the travelling public consider to be a "turn up and go" frequency.

I would say every 15 minutes would be my personal definition.  However, if you live in London, I suspect most people would consider 5 minutes to be the minimum.  "What?  There isn't another one for quarter of an hour?!"

Not a Londoner so most definitely open to correction, but I would have thought that would only be the case for central London.

[Noggin]

I do wonder though, if there is any broad consensus on what the travelling public consider to be a "turn up and go" frequency.

I would say every 15 minutes would be my personal definition.  However, if you live in London, I suspect most people would consider 5 minutes to be the minimum.  "What?  There isn't another one for quarter of an hour?!"

15 minutes is usually the quoted figure, also if a service is cancelled then 30 minutes wait is tolerable for most people.