> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:34:10 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> > wrote: >> I have no reason to believe they are subsidised, and running that > late >> every day (as well as starting at crack of dawn) doesn't sound much > like >> a subsidised route to me.
> It is common for early and late journeys on an otherwise commercial route > to be tendered.
But that doesn't mean it is always the case.
Round my way the "tendered" services are the ones that run after 18:00 and on Sunday. There probably isn't a single bus that runs at those times that isn't paid for by the local council.
But in some parts of the country it is possible to run buses all evening, 7 days a week on a commercial basis and the only buses that the council pays for are those that run to small villages of the like that would never ever see a bus where I live.
In these areas it seems quite likely that a night service can be run commercially and making the argument that "Cambridge" should run such buses because <inset name of middle sized northern town> can do so, is not IMH reasonable.
In article <hS8RGCQjfv$NF...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>[1] Unlike normal bus routes, only those companies which have signed up >(Stagecoach, Whippet and Whippet) are allowed to run on the route, and >it's that exclusivity which triggers a minimum service obligation.
Stagecoach, Stagecoach, Whippet, and Whippet; post the Stagecoach-H&D acquisition.
-- Jonathan Amery. Prayerful souls may find him ##### By our quiet lakes, #######__o Meet him on our hillsides #######'/ When the morning breaks. - James T. East
On Jun 20, 1:09 pm, "tim...." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> But that doesn't mean it is always the case.
True, but my point was that it's possible that it isn't visible to the end user that a service is subsidised. The 4 and 5 in MK used to be good examples of this, though I'm fairly sure Arriva have now taken them near enough fully commercial to avoid the Council just chucking their two premier routes[1] out to the cheapest bidder.
[1] the 300 being a Council route, and an almighty waste of money, all rolled into one. The 2+1 Citaros aren't even all that nice - the seats are rather poorly designed.
In article <1ad6f6fa-2044-4e07-922a-40fd051c8...@c26g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, Neil Williams <pacer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What's with the double-Whippet that keeps being posted?
Long ago the County issued a press release proudly announcing that four operators had signed up to use the MGB: Whippet, Stagecoach, Huntington and District, and Whippet. I kid you not. Hence the now tradition habit of adding '(and Whippet)' after all references to the list of operators.
Subsequent Huntington and District were bought out by one of the others (Whippet?), leaving the County's much vaunted 'four' as 'two' in reality.
On Jun 20, 1:34 pm, Neil Williams <pacer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [1] the 300 being a Council route, and an almighty waste of money, all > rolled into one. The 2+1 Citaros aren't even all that nice - the > seats are rather poorly designed.
Actually, the Citaro in general isn't the bus it once was - or rather, the new Alexander Dennis and Wright options are quickly catching up. The Citaro seating layouts are getting increasingly silly, for instance, with very few normal forward-facing seats in the new Hamburg ones, largely because of the awkward floor shape at the back.
I suppose you need to define rural, but Nottingham has remarkable levels of service on some routes that travel some distance by green fields. These are fully commercial, but not one is operated by the 'big players' and it is largely the result of agressive marketing, quality and delivery of modal shift by Trentbarton. I often wonder if this couldn't happen elsewhere if wasn't for the Stagecoach or Arriva bus turning into a pumpkin around 18:00.
There can be a downside. Nottingham is in the midst of a bus war and some of the green fields see staggering over-provision of bus services. The financial damage could indeed see the loss of evening/Sunday services if the war continues.
For now, my A52 corridor to Radcliffe and Bingham sees a Trentbarton bus in the evening every 40 minutes until 23:20, seven days per week. Premiere is every 30 minutes on the same route until 23:55 SuX 23:15 SuO. Both operate night buses F/S nights, Trentbarton until 03:00. The daytime frequency of both operators is every 15 minutes (and in the day there are other routes on the same corridor).
On Jun 19, 10:01 pm, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> IIRC "high quality" is *all* about frequency (and distance from your home), > it has nothing at all to say about leather seats or wifi.
Does "high-quality" include duration of journey too? I rather like the optimistic 13 mins between Orchard Park East and Central Cambridge. During the morning rush-hour it can take 13 mins to shuffle a few hundred yards along Histon Road. Thinking about it, you'd be pretty pushed to make this journey in 13 mins outside of peak time too.
> > On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:34:10 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> > > wrote: > >> I have no reason to believe they are subsidised, and running that > > late > >> every day (as well as starting at crack of dawn) doesn't sound much > > like > >> a subsidised route to me.
> > It is common for early and late journeys on an otherwise commercial route > > to be tendered.
> But that doesn't mean it is always the case.
> Round my way the "tendered" services are the ones that run after 18:00 and > on Sunday. There probably isn't a single bus that runs at those times that > isn't paid for by the local council.
> But in some parts of the country it is possible to run buses all evening, 7 > days a week on a commercial basis and the only buses that the council pays > for are those that run to small villages of the like that would never ever > see a bus where I live.
> In these areas it seems quite likely that a night service can be run > commercially and making the argument that "Cambridge" should run such buses > because <inset name of middle sized northern town> can do so, is not IMH > reasonable.
> tim
I'm somewhat fond of my TfL service that can get me home from town at 1am every day of the week for the price of an Oyster fare :)
...but still we've had cuts - the last service used to be at 1:30am...as I found out one unfortunate morning. ;)
> On Jun 19, 10:01 pm, "Tim Ward"<t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote: >> IIRC "high quality" is *all* about frequency (and distance from your home), >> it has nothing at all to say about leather seats or wifi.
> Does "high-quality" include duration of journey too? I rather like the > optimistic 13 mins between Orchard Park East and Central Cambridge. > During the morning rush-hour it can take 13 mins to shuffle a few > hundred yards along Histon Road. Thinking about it, you'd be pretty > pushed to make this journey in 13 mins outside of peak time too.
"high quality" is what ever is in the mind of the speaker.
Thus the County Council was forced by the planning inspector in one planning document to define what was meant by "high quality " for that that specific document. However in subsequent documents the definition of "high quality" was removed but the phrase continued to be used.
On the MGB AFAIK the conditions were that the buses should meet defined emission levels and that new buses should be used when it was opened. I think second hand London buses will meet the required standards from day 2 of the operation.
In message <b17a0c31-5294-487d-a40d-970d75860...@u19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, at 03:32:02 on Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Neil Williams <pacer...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> The MGB is a route which pays a premium[1], but people won't use the bus >> at all if the timetable isn't adequate (a bus to town, but not one back, >> is almost worse than no bus at all).
>> [1] Unlike normal bus routes, only those companies which have signed up >> (Stagecoach, Whippet and Whippet) are allowed to run on the route, and >> it's that exclusivity which triggers a minimum service obligation.
>ISTR that any bus company could sign up so long as they paid for the >guided equipment and buses of suitable quality.
No, it was more complicated than that. There was an element of exclusiveness to attract operators to run a fully rounded service, not just cherry pick a few lucrative runs.
>I see it being compared with trams - but they generally receive >subsidy. If it won't pay to run extensive evening services, why would >bus companies run them?
In order to make the project enough of a success that people use it during the day as well. -- Roland Perry
In message <968nnpFem...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:02:28 on Mon, 20 Jun 2011, tim.... <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>The reason that certain areas don't get late buses is because, when they are >offered, the residents of that area don't use them. "Use it or lose it" very >much applies here.
The MGB is a brand new project, designed with the aim of providing a significant modal shift from the villages to the east of the A14 corridor (and two new P&R's). Its cost is in the region of 150m (give or take a bit of arguing with the contractors). If there aren't any buses to *use*, what's the point of this costly experiment?
>>>>>"enabling people to visit a hospital/relatives on a Sunday".
>>>> You haven't noticed that the MGB is useless for that as well, I suppose?
>>>Hourly from 9:00-17:00 IS adequate for that purpose.
>> You could do the early afternoon session I suppose, but not the evening >> one.
>Are you talking hospital visiting hours or pub opening hours?
The hospital hours. Although we are actually somewhat at cross purposes here, because the MGB doesn't serve Addenbrookes *at all* on a Sunday. But if you can get a conventional bus to the City Centre for 1735 you could head north from there.
>I thought that hospitals had done away with rigid visiting sessions.
It varies from hospital to hospital, and at big places like Addenbrookes from ward to ward. My own impression is that they are in a phase of tightening up at the moment. At my own hospital (not Addys) they often don't allow morning visiting at all - if you want to see a patient you have to arrange a rendezvous in the ward's reception area.
>Once again, subsidised buses are provided where they most useful.
How many times... these are *not* subsidised buses.
>> But you probably haven't been told by the County Council that they are >> providing[1] a landmark "high quality public transport" project, like the >> good folks in Cambridge have.
>In marketing speak, "high quality" doesn't equate to "round the clock"
We aren't looking for round-the-clock, just reasonable levels of service you can rely upon getting a bus home without spending your entire time clock watching.
>> [1] And not subsidised, the bus operators pay a premium.
>Are they?
These services pay a premium, they don't get a subsidy (doubly so now that Cambridgshire is axing pretty much all the subsidised routes they did have). -- Roland Perry
In uk.railway tim.... <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The reason that certain areas don't get late buses is because, when they > are offered, the residents of that area don't use them. "Use it or lose > it" very much applies here.
I think the County have painted themselves into a corner here:
The busway is slower in terms of journey times than existing buses. This is OK /if/ the emphasis is on reliability: when the A14 jams, the existing timetable can go to pot. So a 44 min service +/- 3 mins is better than a 42 min +/- 15 mins (numbers completely invented).
But the A14 isn't a problem off-peak. It's still quicker to drive, and on evenings and Sundays it isn't too difficult to find somewhere to park for free on the outskirts of Cambridge city centre if you know where to look. Even with driving, parking and walking into town, it's still quicker than the MGB.
So there's no incentive for people to take the MGB over the car, hence the traffic predictions are low, and thus the services put on are poor, which means there's even less incentive to take the MGB.
A serious campaign to push for modal shift might have a small effect, but if it can't make the MGB quicker, cheaper or more convenient than the car, it's going to have limited traction. Hence the prospects of service improvements are small. It is difficult to envisage people being able to sell their cars based on the current MGB service alone, which is when the real financial incentive would come.
So, until the A14 is either tolled, or further gridlocked, there isn't much purpose for the MGB outside 'shopper hours' (being the hours when parking is expensive and the A14 busy). And that's unlikely to change in the near future.
All of which was predicted in 2004 without the need to spend £180m...
In message <Iay*2s...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 15:02:02 on Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Theo Markettos <theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>So there's no incentive for people to take the MGB over the car, hence the >traffic predictions are low, and thus the services put on are poor
Whose predictions are those? The County was talking about buses every three minutes and quite frankly impossible numbers of journeys per day (requiring full buses even against the tidal flow etc). -- Roland Perry
In message <d8ef3a25-c80f-4492-8bbd-abc591ab7...@n28g2000vbs.googlegroup s.com>, at 07:33:54 on Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Neil Williams <pacer...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> These services pay a premium
>There is a fee for the use of the busway over and above vehicle excise >duty, I assume you mean?
Yes, the bus companies are paying the county sufficient to cover all the operating expenses of the busway, and repay about half the County's own [original estimate of the] "investment" - the rest to come from developers of housing and other sites en-route, all of which unfortunately seem to be vapourware at the moment.
In a sense you could say that the services after 7pm are "subsidised" because the operators don't have to pay to run them... or looked at the other way it's a zero premium (but no money flowing from County to Bus company either).
ps We are now three years into the five years mentioned in that article, and no sign of anything happening at Northstowe (the housing claimed to make it attractive to run the service from years 2013-2018). -- Roland Perry
On Jun 20, 4:47 pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes, the bus companies are paying the county sufficient to cover all the > operating expenses of the busway, and repay about half the County's own > [original estimate of the] "investment" - the rest to come from > developers of housing and other sites en-route, all of which > unfortunately seem to be vapourware at the moment.
So at some point, said bus operators might decide it is unremunerative to use the busway, I guess.
> On Jun 20, 4:47 pm, Roland Perry<rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> Yes, the bus companies are paying the county sufficient to cover all the >> operating expenses of the busway, and repay about half the County's own >> [original estimate of the] "investment" - the rest to come from >> developers of housing and other sites en-route, all of which >> unfortunately seem to be vapourware at the moment.
> So at some point, said bus operators might decide it is unremunerative > to use the busway, I guess.
Probably by the end of the first accounting period after the route opens.
-- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
In message <5e47d1a5-cf67-40a1-ab87-950fb59f3...@a7g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, at 08:05:06 on Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Neil Williams <pacer...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Yes, the bus companies are paying the county sufficient to cover all the >> operating expenses of the busway, and repay about half the County's own >> [original estimate of the] "investment" - the rest to come from >> developers of housing and other sites en-route, all of which >> unfortunately seem to be vapourware at the moment.
>So at some point, said bus operators might decide it is unremunerative >to use the busway, I guess.
>This is not looking good...
Exactly. Those of us who are "locals" and been discussing this blow by blow since before construction started would not be surprised to see the operators walk away after whatever their minimum contract period is (which we believe to be 5 years, starting maybe two years ago). -- Roland Perry
Neil Williams wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:34:10 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> > wrote: >> I have no reason to believe they are subsidised, and running that > late >> every day (as well as starting at crack of dawn) doesn't sound much > like >> a subsidised route to me.
> It is common for early and late journeys on an otherwise commercial > route to be tendered.
But in Cambridgeshire there will be no tendered services left at the end of the budget period. To be very clear the County Council has a policy of having zero spent on bus services within four years. (This doesn't stop districts providing subsidy, of course)
> In message <968nnpFem...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:02:28 on Mon, 20 Jun > 2011, tim.... <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>The reason that certain areas don't get late buses is because, when they >>are >>offered, the residents of that area don't use them. "Use it or lose it" >>very >>much applies here.
> The MGB is a brand new project, designed with the aim of providing a > significant modal shift from the villages to the east of the A14 corridor > (and two new P&R's). Its cost is in the region of 150m (give or take a > bit of arguing with the contractors). If there aren't any buses to *use*, > what's the point of this costly experiment?
But there are buses to use. And I can only repeat, that for a rural route in the south it is better than many.
You don't need to discuss with me whether the number of buses justify the expense . I always was on the side of "no".
But you also seem to be saying that you don't think that there are enough buses in principle and that (someone) should pay for some more. Here is where I disagree.
On 20 Jun 2011 12:29:01 +0100 (BST), Jonathan Amery put finger to keyboard and typed:
>In article <hS8RGCQjfv$NF...@perry.co.uk>, >Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote: >>[1] Unlike normal bus routes, only those companies which have signed up >>(Stagecoach, Whippet and Whippet) are allowed to run on the route, and >>it's that exclusivity which triggers a minimum service obligation.
In message <969gpmFls...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:10:07 on Mon, 20 Jun 2011, tim.... <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> The MGB is a brand new project, designed with the aim of providing a >> significant modal shift from the villages to the east of the A14 corridor >> (and two new P&R's). Its cost is in the region of 150m (give or take a >> bit of arguing with the contractors). If there aren't any buses to *use*, >> what's the point of this costly experiment?
>But there are buses to use. And I can only repeat, that for a rural route >in the south it is better than many.
With the number of buses provided it will fail in its objective. Perhaps people will think that's a good thing. A nail in the coffin of guided buses everywhere. It's not just "any old new set of bus routes", it has required a vast build spend and is supposed to proving you can get people out of their cars. -- Roland Perry
In article <vUby3bQ+X5$NF...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <969gpmFls...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:10:07 on Mon, 20 Jun >2011, tim.... <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked: >>> The MGB is a brand new project, designed with the aim of providing a >>> significant modal shift from the villages to the east of the A14 corridor >>> (and two new P&R's). Its cost is in the region of 150m (give or take a >>> bit of arguing with the contractors). If there aren't any buses to *use*, >>> what's the point of this costly experiment?
Its actual (capital) cost, including lawyer's fees etc., will almost certainly exceed 200 million and may be much higher. The current expenditure has exceeded 180 million, there is more to come, and the County is desperately trying to get section 106 money from every major development in the area, whether or not the MGB is even plausibly relevant. That's all published.
Naturally, I haven't seen the actual agreements, but there is very little evidence that the County is even going to get enough money from the bus operators for the routine maintenance, let alone the repairs that will assuredly become necessary. Indeed, there is some evidence that the County now know that they won't.
>>But there are buses to use. And I can only repeat, that for a rural route >>in the south it is better than many.
If it went from where people wanted to go from to where they wanted to go to, it would be. There is no evidence that it does, and most analyses have indicated that it doesn't.
>With the number of buses provided it will fail in its objective. Perhaps >people will think that's a good thing. A nail in the coffin of guided >buses everywhere. It's not just "any old new set of bus routes", it has >required a vast build spend and is supposed to proving you can get >people out of their cars.
Indeed. People are as likely to start flying to work by pig.
