I wish they would understand ours.....

Getting back to the point , why not visit the links below and read the latest DfT research.
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=331987&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/scienceresearch/social/youngaspirations

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/scienceresearch/social/olderaspirations

They may be obvious to you ... but they are not everyone's obvious priority. See http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=926.0 where the passenger's official watchdog has told us that it's priorities are Fares, Seats for Passengers, Disruption Management, Complaints, Accessibility, Stations. Not a mention of a sensible frequency service in site!

Don't get me wrong - I wasn't saying that Passenger Focus wouldn't like to see an increased service - rather I was reporting on the statement of priorities given by one of their officers speaking on a national public platform.  And the comment that an appropriate level of service (however worded) isn't high on their agenda is backed up by local contacts with Passenger Focus which say (and demonstrate) a similar priority.   Looking through their web site, the best I came up with for goals was at:

http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/about-us/our-goals.asp


And their Hot issue page lists


Which (on West Coast timetables) does give some indication of a service timing / frequency interest.

Can you post up the URL of the page from which your quote came?   I'm notoriously blind in missing things that are right under my nose, but I couldn't see it so that I can fairly put that content into context.  Thanks!

I have often found contradicting or at least not entirely coherent information on company and organisation websites.  This usually stems from different people copy and pasting things from various policy documents,meetings, strategic plans on the site, supplemented by a marketing person's spin.  It would therefore not surprise me that one person finds one set of priorities and other person finds another.

Taken in sum this doesn't inspire much faith in the unity of their voice.  Perhaps one of us should alert them to the fact that they are not singing from exactly the same hymn sheet!  It would certainly help out causes if the national passenger watchdog could get their list of priorities exactly right.

All this will be really good fodder for future social and government historians.  Collectively the various organisations have created a status quo which is almost impenetrable to change from 'below' yet can still be used as a great success story for companies such as the TOCs and the government for offering excellent value for money to the 'taxpayer'.  Not to mention the absolutely incredible contradiction in government policies on energy conservation and sustainibility on the one hand and sustainable transport on the other.

I did note on the latest National Passenger Survey conducted by PF that in April 2007 people's satisfaction with frequency declined by 2%, value for money down 4% and the way TOCs dealt with delays down the most since Autumn 2006 at 5% (figures from national totals).  Analysing FGW's region, all indicators show no change or a decline.  The satisfaction with frequency declined by 6%, satisfaction with punctuality and reliability down 7% and value for money down 6%.

Now I haven't read up on who Passenger Focus canvassed for their surveys but clearly frequency still is an issue that can be kept live.  Government and TOCs would of course prefer it not to be a key priority but at least on intra-regional routes it will always remain one and therefore one we must keep raising with our local transport authority, local representatives and the TOCs themselves.