Re: World's Longest Guided Busway timetables published
Mizter T
On Jun 18, 4:00 pm, Theo Markettos <theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> Opening date 7th August.
>
> http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/around/thebusway/timetables/
>
> Bottom line: don't trying using it on evenings or Sundays, it can't be
> bothered.
There are at least a few late services on route B (e.g. last bus from
Huntingdon at 2235, last bus going t'other way from Cambridge at
2335), but routes A & C just die a death by the mid-evening.
Perhaps useful to refer to the Busway route map for what follows...
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/Cambs-Busway-route-map>
I wonder if someone might be able to enlighten a bear of little brain
w.r.t. the (seemingly) minimal service from Somersham, and how on the
Route C timetable there are unexplained instances of a mysterious two-
a-(week)day each way "Route D" service (St Ives - Drummer St,
Cambridge), plus the "Route A" services to Somersham of which there
are actually more in total during the course of a day than Route C
services (three Route A services each way a day, compared to two Route
C services each way) - why doesn't the map also show Route A in a
dotted line going to Somersham, or is the current map now out of date
in that it reflects an old proposed service pattern? (And why doesn't
the map's legend explain the dotted line as being 'limited service'?)
I wonder whether there would have been any subsidised Busway services
under the old regime (e.g. better evening and Sunday services), had
Cambridgeshire CC not decided they were going to ditch bus subsidies
altogether?
Looking at the fares page...
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/Cambs-Busway-ticket-info>
...there's no multi-operator ticket for the Busway yet (apparently
it's "taken time to develop" - think they've had quite a bit of
time...), so on the busway sections where you have to buy your ticket
beforehand, a passenger will need to decide if they're travelling on
Stagecoach i.e. Routes A and B, or Whippet i.e. Route C (the blue
route) (and do Whippet operate the mystery Route D services too?).
The above page doesn't show the cost of single fares, just day and
weekly fares - Whippet is a bit cheaper (I'm guessing single fares
will mirror this), and their "Just Go zone 1" day ticket is valid from
Cambridge up to Longstanton P&R, whilst Stagecoach's cheaper Day/
Megarider tickets only cover up to Oakington.
Not quite sure how this whole price competition thing on a single
busway is going to pan out - I'd think continental Europeans would
likely regard it as barking! Well, that's how we insist on doing
things here (FSVO 'we') - expect passenger confusion, I'd say.
I imagine that, despite being a tad more expensive, the Stagecoach day/
week passes will be more attractive - they'll operate more of the
Busway services, and the tickets will also be valid on other
Stagecoach buses - AFAICS the Whippet day/week tickets are only good
on their Busway services. I wonder if the Whippet run Route C might
suffer from lower patronage as a result?
Whilst broadly on the subject, another interesting-ish buses related
thing w.r.t. Cambridgeshire is the PTE-esque multi-operator "MultiBus"
day/week ticket (GBP7 for a day) - how long has this been around for?
I'm guessing it was a County Council initiative from more enlightened
times.
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/Cambs-MultiBus-ticket>
82045
Theo Markettos
> There are at least a few late services on route B (e.g. last bus from
> Huntingdon at 2235, last bus going t'other way from Cambridge at
> 2335), but routes A & C just die a death by the mid-evening.
Given the system is supposed to be a pseudo-tram, it's very poor. For
example, on Sundays northbound trams on Nottingham's NET are every 15 mins
until 2315ish.
Buses to Addenbrookes hospital and Cambridge Science Park die around 1900 on
weekdays and don't exist on Sundays. So anyone working late or on shifts is
stuffed (Addenbrookes people can at least get conventional buses to town and
then change).
> Perhaps useful to refer to the Busway route map for what follows...
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/Cambs-Busway-route-map>
>
> I wonder if someone might be able to enlighten a bear of little brain
> w.r.t. the (seemingly) minimal service from Somersham, and how on the
> Route C timetable there are unexplained instances of a mysterious two-
> a-(week)day each way "Route D" service (St Ives - Drummer St,
> Cambridge), plus the "Route A" services to Somersham of which there
> are actually more in total during the course of a day than Route C
> services (three Route A services each way a day, compared to two Route
> C services each way) - why doesn't the map also show Route A in a
> dotted line going to Somersham, or is the current map now out of date
> in that it reflects an old proposed service pattern? (And why doesn't
> the map's legend explain the dotted line as being 'limited service'?)
Service C is due to operator politics. Huntingdon/St Ives was a
Huntingdon&District route, which was bought by Stagecoach. Whippet ran as a
competitor. With the busway, Whippet felt they needed to be part of it so
pushed their Somersham route along the busway rather than the A14 or through
the villages. Whippet (being a small local operator) are already grumpy
that they put a large outlay on expensive brand new high-spec buses that
they haven't been able to use for more than two years (except on un-guided
services). Somersham currently has some early morning buses to St Ives on
route 21, so looks like these have been joined to some St Ives-Cambridge
buses.
Whippet runs various early morning services from neighbouring villages to St
Ives, so I'd guess service D involves joining one of those to the busway
services.
> I wonder whether there would have been any subsidised Busway services
> under the old regime (e.g. better evening and Sunday services), had
> Cambridgeshire CC not decided they were going to ditch bus subsidies
> altogether?
The timetable looks pretty similar to a merger of the 55 (Huntingdon-St
Ives-Cambridge), H1/service A (Trumpington P&R-Addenbrookes), and some
Whippet services (I haven't worked out which yet, but if the 1A/B is
cancelled that means a cut from half-hourly to hourly)
>
> Looking at the fares page...
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/Cambs-Busway-ticket-info>
>
> ...there's no multi-operator ticket for the Busway yet (apparently
> it's "taken time to develop" - think they've had quite a bit of
> time...), so on the busway sections where you have to buy your ticket
> beforehand, a passenger will need to decide if they're travelling on
> Stagecoach i.e. Routes A and B, or Whippet i.e. Route C (the blue
> route) (and do Whippet operate the mystery Route D services too?).
...and so they'll need to decide what colour bus is coming along first (live
info displays don't always tell the truth)
> The above page doesn't show the cost of single fares, just day and
> weekly fares - Whippet is a bit cheaper (I'm guessing single fares
> will mirror this), and their "Just Go zone 1" day ticket is valid from
> Cambridge up to Longstanton P&R, whilst Stagecoach's cheaper Day/
> Megarider tickets only cover up to Oakington.
It's not clear whether normal point to point tickets will remain. For
example, on the current service A (Trumpington P&R to Addenbrookes), a
return is £2.10. Does the above mean it's now £3.50? That buys you quite a
bit of hospital parking, especially if there's more than one of you! And
there's now a nice new uncongested road straight from one to the other.
> Not quite sure how this whole price competition thing on a single
> busway is going to pan out - I'd think continental Europeans would
> likely regard it as barking! Well, that's how we insist on doing
> things here (FSVO 'we') - expect passenger confusion, I'd say.
Especially since buses carry 'the busway' logos rather than
Stagecoach/Whippet branding.
> I imagine that, despite being a tad more expensive, the Stagecoach day/
> week passes will be more attractive - they'll operate more of the
> Busway services, and the tickets will also be valid on other
> Stagecoach buses - AFAICS the Whippet day/week tickets are only good
> on their Busway services. I wonder if the Whippet run Route C might
> suffer from lower patronage as a result?
Whippet is a minor player in Cambridge, and I can't imagine people wanting
to do multiple non-out-and-back trips per day on the busway like they might
in the city centre. Whippet will definitely see a patronage drop if they
cut their service from half-hourly to hourly. Though they're seeing some
interest from Cambourne residents who had steep price hikes on Stagecoach
recently, so sentiment does play a little part.
> Whilst broadly on the subject, another interesting-ish buses related
> thing w.r.t. Cambridgeshire is the PTE-esque multi-operator "MultiBus"
> day/week ticket (GBP7 for a day) - how long has this been around for?
> I'm guessing it was a County Council initiative from more enlightened
> times.
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/Cambs-MultiBus-ticket>
It's been around for maybe 5 years. I've never ever seen anyone buy one:
it's more expensive than Stagecoach's county-wide ticket, and in rural areas
the buses are sparse enough that a multi-leg bus journey tends to be infeasible.
In Cambridge there are a few routes where it might be handy, but not at that
price.
Theo
tim....
"82045" <brian....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:559c8cdd-413b-4119...@d14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm glad I don't live in Cambridgeshire.
It's better than the bus services I get.
I'd swap for it
tim
Roland Perry
18 Jun 2011, Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
remarked:
>>a passenger will need to decide if they're travelling on
>> Stagecoach i.e. Routes A and B, or Whippet i.e. Route C (the blue
>> route) (and do Whippet operate the mystery Route D services too?).
>
>...and so they'll need to decide what colour bus is coming along first (live
>info displays don't always tell the truth)
Although they ought to be more reliable on the busway because overtaking
is so much harder.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
<ca71d6f3-9c65-4c00...@g16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, at
10:26:36 on Sat, 18 Jun 2011, Mizter T <mizt...@gmail.com> remarked:
>[x-posted to utb]
>
>On Jun 18, 4:00 pm, Theo Markettos <theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> Opening date 7th August.
>>
>> http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/around/thebusway/timetables/
>>
>> Bottom line: don't trying using it on evenings or Sundays, it can't be
>> bothered.
>
>There are at least a few late services on route B (e.g. last bus from
>Huntingdon at 2235, last bus going t'other way from Cambridge at
>2335), but routes A & C just die a death by the mid-evening.
>
>Perhaps useful to refer to the Busway route map for what follows...
><http://preview.tinyurl.com/Cambs-Busway-route-map>
>
>I wonder if someone might be able to enlighten a bear of little brain
>w.r.t. the (seemingly) minimal service from Somersham,
It's a "commuters only" service, clearly. Probably a loincloth for "this
serves some places off the main drag", but only just.
>and how on the
>Route C timetable there are unexplained instances of a mysterious two-
>a-(week)day each way "Route D" service (St Ives - Drummer St,
>Cambridge), plus the "Route A" services to Somersham of which there
>are actually more in total during the course of a day than Route C
>services (three Route A services each way a day, compared to two Route
>C services each way) - why doesn't the map also show Route A in a
>dotted line going to Somersham, or is the current map now out of date
>in that it reflects an old proposed service pattern? (And why doesn't
>the map's legend explain the dotted line as being 'limited service'?)
I hadn't noticed the "A" and "D" trips on the Whippet timetable. Gosh,
it is all a bit of a muddle, isn't it!
>I wonder whether there would have been any subsidised Busway services
>under the old regime (e.g. better evening and Sunday services), had
>Cambridgeshire CC not decided they were going to ditch bus subsidies
>altogether?
There was talk of subsidised services in the evening as far as Orchard
Park, I think. Which would mean a guided bus which only had a couple of
hundred yards guidance (the rest being on roads).
>Looking at the fares page...
><http://preview.tinyurl.com/Cambs-Busway-ticket-info>
>
>...there's no multi-operator ticket for the Busway yet (apparently
>it's "taken time to develop" - think they've had quite a bit of
>time...),
The start is at least two years late, and multi-operator tickets was one
of the original big selling features.
>Stagecoach's cheaper Day/ Megarider tickets only cover up to Oakington.
It's outrageous that their �3.50 ticket doesn't cover the closest P&R to
Cambridge, forcing people to pay �4.50 instead.
>AFAICS the Whippet day/week tickets are only good on their Busway
>services. I wonder if the Whippet run Route C might suffer from lower
>patronage as a result?
That seems very likely.
>Whilst broadly on the subject, another interesting-ish buses related
>thing w.r.t. Cambridgeshire is the PTE-esque multi-operator "MultiBus"
>day/week ticket (GBP7 for a day) - how long has this been around for?
>I'm guessing it was a County Council initiative from more enlightened
>times.
><http://preview.tinyurl.com/Cambs-MultiBus-ticket>
I've not heard of that before, a bit like Nottingham's Kangaroo:
http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2811
which is half the price, and covers a much larger population area (if
not more square miles).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2011, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>Stagecoach's cheaper Day/ Megarider tickets only cover up to Oakington.
>
>It's outrageous that their �3.50 ticket doesn't cover the closest P&R
>to Cambridge, forcing people to pay �4.50 instead.
<cough> �5.40
--
Roland Perry
embers25
> In message <Gay*GQ...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 19:12:16 on Sat,
> remarked:
>
> >>a passenger will need to decide if they're travelling on
> >> Stagecoach i.e. Routes A and B, or Whippet i.e. Route C (the blue
> >> route) (and do Whippet operate the mystery Route D services too?).
>
> >...and so they'll need to decide what colour bus is coming along first (live
> >info displays don't always tell the truth)
>
> Although they ought to be more reliable on the busway because overtaking
> is so much harder.
> --
> Roland Perry
What happens if,or rather when,a bus breaks down on the bus way? Are
there places to divert to the other lane and is that allowed?
Bevan Price
> In uk.railway Mizter T<mizt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are at least a few late services on route B (e.g. last bus from
>> Huntingdon at 2235, last bus going t'other way from Cambridge at
Cambridge to St. Ives (Bus Station) via busway = 36 minutes.
Cambridge to St. Ives (Bus Station), service 55 via normal roads = 36
minutes.
So how much have they spent to reduce the journey time by a magnificent
zero minutes ?
Bevan
Roland Perry
<c1dfa424-6061-4450...@u10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, at
11:43:41 on Sat, 18 Jun 2011, embers25 <ember...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>What happens if,or rather when,a bus breaks down on the bus way? Are
>there places to divert to the other lane and is that allowed?
The plan isn't to divert to the other lane (apart from anything else
you'll get two buses stuck if you meet one coming the other way). But
wherever it crosses existing side-roads, the buses are released from the
track and subsequent[1] buses can make their way to their destination on
those existing roads (albeit in most cases it's a long diversion).
The broken down one will be repaired on site as a result of a service
track running the entire length (which doubles as a cycle track). I
think they may even have a guide-compatible tow-truck as well.
[1] The worst case will be when there's a bus behind the broken down
one, on the same section of guideway.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Sat, 18 Jun 2011, Bevan Price <bevanp...@btinternet.com> remarked:
>Cambridge to St. Ives (Bus Station) via busway = 36 minutes.
>Cambridge to St. Ives (Bus Station), service 55 via normal roads = 36
>minutes.
>So how much have they spent to reduce the journey time by a magnificent
>zero minutes ?
From Trumpington P&R to Cambridge the guided bus takes longer than the
existing service! Cambridge to Huntingdon, the guided bus seems to be a
whole 5 minutes quicker.
--
Roland Perry
Michael Kilpatrick
>>
>> There are at least a few late services on route B (e.g. last bus from
>> Huntingdon at 2235,
2235? Ah, that's someone's idea of "late", is it?
> last bus going t'other way from Cambridge at
>> 2335),
That *almost* counts as late, but not really.
Michael
Tim Ward
news:dridneVsjecLjmDQ...@brightview.co.uk...
To me, leaving the pub at 23:00 and being able to catch the bus home counts
as a decent evening service. The Citi 1 at 23:15 is just right.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Neil Williams
wrote:
> [1] The worst case will be when there's a bus behind the broken
down
> one, on the same section of guideway.
Can buses reverse on the guideway? The way guidance works might
suggest not?
Neil
--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK
Alan Quick
As an aside if you are leaving Huntingdon for Cambridge around 11.00 the
alternatives are,
Route B depart 10.50 arrive 12.01
Existing Whippet route 1B depart 11.00 arrive 12.06
Existing Whippet route 1/3 (it is a through bus) depart 11.05 arrive 11.56
Route B depart 11.10 arrive 12.21
Alan Quick
Clive D. W. Feather
<ca71d6f3-9c65-4c00...@g16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>I wonder if someone might be able to enlighten a bear of little brain
>w.r.t. the (seemingly) minimal service from Somersham, and how on the
>Route C timetable there are unexplained instances of a mysterious two-
>a-(week)day each way "Route D" service (St Ives - Drummer St,
>Cambridge), plus the "Route A" services to Somersham
Are these Whippet "Route A" buses or Stagecoach "Route A" buses?
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
Clive D. W. Feather
>> Looking at the fares page...
>> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/Cambs-Busway-ticket-info>
>>
>> ...there's no multi-operator ticket for the Busway yet (apparently
>> it's "taken time to develop" - think they've had quite a bit of
>> time...),
Indeed, and just what needs to be "tested"? Come to think of it, if
passengers can't buy them, how on earth are they going to be tested?
>>so on the busway sections where you have to buy your ticket
>> beforehand, a passenger will need to decide if they're travelling on
>> Stagecoach i.e. Routes A and B, or Whippet i.e. Route C (the blue
>> route) (and do Whippet operate the mystery Route D services too?).
>
>...and so they'll need to decide what colour bus is coming along first (live
>info displays don't always tell the truth)
I thought the council had decreed that all busway buses were to be
green.
Nick Leverton
Clive D. W. Feather <cl...@davros.org> wrote:
>In message <Gay*GQ...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo Markettos
><theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Looking at the fares page...
>>> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/Cambs-Busway-ticket-info>
>>
>>info displays don't always tell the truth)
>
>I thought the council had decreed that all busway buses were to be
>green.
Leaf Green, I hope :-)
Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
Chris Tolley
> On 18/06/2011 19:22, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>>
>>> There are at least a few late services on route B (e.g. last bus from
>>> Huntingdon at 2235,
>
> 2235? Ah, that's someone's idea of "late", is it?
I see you are responding to Mr Perry. In previous correspondence with
me, it is clear that he thinks "late" is in the region of 2100.
--
.sig down for maintenance
82045
>
> What happens if,or rather when,a bus breaks down on the bus way? Are
> there places to divert to the other lane and is that allowed?
Do they have compatible couplers?
Roland Perry
22:07:28 on Sat, 18 Jun 2011, Michael Kilpatrick
<ne...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk> remarked:
>On 18/06/2011 19:22, Roland Perry wrote:
Actually it was Mizer T who wrote this...
>>> There are at least a few late services on route B (e.g. last bus from
>>> Huntingdon at 2235,
>
>
>2235? Ah, that's someone's idea of "late", is it?
>
>> last bus going t'other way from Cambridge at
>>> 2335),
>
>That *almost* counts as late, but not really.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
on Sat, 18 Jun 2011, Chris Tolley <cj.t...@bogus.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 18/06/2011 19:22, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> There are at least a few late services on route B (e.g. last bus from
>>>> Huntingdon at 2235,
>>
>> 2235? Ah, that's someone's idea of "late", is it?
>
>I see you are responding to Mr Perry.
He wasn't, the remarks were made by Mizer T!
>In previous correspondence with
>me, it is clear that he thinks "late" is in the region of 2100.
No, that 9.30 pm is late to be getting back to Nottingham station after
a day at work in London.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
22:15:24 on Sat, 18 Jun 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>Can buses reverse on the guideway? The way guidance works might
>suggest not?
Probably not more than a few feet.
--
Roland Perry
tim....
"Chris Tolley" <cj.t...@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote in message
news:1peo32yrw2868$.1noizxi74j3j2$.dlg@40tude.net...
I'm sure that Rowland thinks like everyone else that "late" really means
after 11pm.
But the reality is in many rural areas buses never ever provide that and
having a "late" bus means that there is one after 18:30.
This is certainly true where I live. Out of 7 "out of town" routes only one
provides a "late" bus by that criteria and out of 5 town routes only 2 do.
None of the routes provide a bus after 22:30.
Running buses "commercially" at this time is not viable and councils don't
think that subsidising "late night revellers" is not a good use of their
limited transport resources when the alternative demand for that resource is
"enabling people to visit a hospital/relatives on a Sunday".
tim
Tim Ward
news:965ski...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Running buses "commercially" at this time is not viable and councils don't
> think that subsidising "late night revellers" is not a good use of their
> limited transport resources when the alternative demand for that resource
> is "enabling people to visit a hospital/relatives on a Sunday".
The two are linked. Providing a late night bus so that kids can avoid the
fights in the taxi queue reduces the number who end up in hospital in the
first place ...
Neil Williams
wrote:
> Probably not more than a few feet.
Hmm. Next question - if there is a breakdown can people get off and
walk, or are they going to be waiting hours, I wonder?
embers25
Guess we'll find out soon enough when the first one breaks down and it
makes national news! Even if they can divert off via a long diversion
what happens to the stops they miss and how will people know where to
now wait? Also if 1 does get stuck behind the broken down one thats
2 buses stranded and a massive potential reduction in frequency while
the repairs are done. Also even if pax can get off (which health and
safety probably won't allow) they'll have a long walk to the next
stop where the diverted buses may actually be able to reach) Surely
someone at the Council must have considered such scenarios and a
clever solution is ready?!
tim....
"embers25" <ember...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d1ec160f-3d82-48ad...@m24g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 10:05 am, Neil Williams <pacer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:17:56 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Probably not more than a few feet.
>
> Hmm. Next question - if there is a breakdown can people get off and
> walk, or are they going to be waiting hours, I wonder?
>
> Neil
>
> --
> Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK
Guess we'll find out soon enough when the first one breaks down and it
makes national news! Even if they can divert off via a long diversion
what happens to the stops they miss and how will people know where to
now wait?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except for the stops within the town, all of the stops are at the point
where the "track" crosses the main road or inside the P&R area.
Looking at the current bus routs all of these roads have some bus service at
the moment so it's theoretically possible to construct a route which
reachees all of them without using the busway
tim
tim....
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote in message
news:965ss9...@mid.individual.net...
> "tim...." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:965ski...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Running buses "commercially" at this time is not viable and councils
>> don't think that subsidising "late night revellers" is not a good use of
>> their limited transport resources when the alternative demand for that
>> resource is "enabling people to visit a hospital/relatives on a Sunday".
>
> The two are linked. Providing a late night bus so that kids can avoid the
> fights in the taxi queue reduces the number who end up in hospital in the
> first place ...
IME of catching a late night bus from an area that does run them
(commercially), all this does, in that respect, is move the location of the
fights.
tim
Mizter T
On Jun 19, 11:10 am, embers25 <embers2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 10:05 am, Neil Williams <pacer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Next question - if there is a breakdown can people get off and
> > walk, or are they going to be waiting hours, I wonder?
>
> Guess we'll find out soon enough when the first one breaks down and it
> makes national news! Even if they can divert off via a long diversion
> what happens to the stops they miss and how will people know where to
> now wait? Also if 1 does get stuck behind the broken down one thats
> 2 buses stranded and a massive potential reduction in frequency while
> the repairs are done. Also even if pax can get off (which health and
> safety probably won't allow) [...]
Glad you're so sure about that - in contrast I bet there's no problem
about doing that at all, this isn't a railway after all, more akin to
a tramway.
> [...] they'll have a long walk to the next
Roland Perry
2011, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> I see you are responding to Mr Perry. In previous correspondence with
>> me, it is clear that he thinks "late" is in the region of 2100.
>
>I'm sure that Rowland thinks like everyone else that "late" really means
>after 11pm.
Of course. Tolley is referring to an old feud over the timing of
off-peak intercity trains, not local buses.
>But the reality is in many rural areas buses never ever provide that and
>having a "late" bus means that there is one after 18:30.
If TPTB thought the area served by the misguided bus was truly rural, I
doubt they would have been able to get agreement to sink �150m (or
whatever) into building it. With that level of investment it deserves to
have buses running later into the evening, or people will still use
their cars.
Villages just as small as those served by the MGB, in the Nottingham
hinterland, typically get a bus service until late in the evening.
http://www.trentbarton.co.uk/servicePdfs/cotgrave-connection.pdf
(Last bus 11.20pm except Fri/Sat when it's 01.20am; yes even Sundays)
>Running buses "commercially" at this time is not viable and councils don't
>think that subsidising "late night revellers" is not a good use of their
>limited transport resources when the alternative demand for that resource is
>"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?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
10:05:24 on Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>Next question - if there is a breakdown can people get off and walk, or
>are they going to be waiting hours, I wonder?
The most practical solution would be to wait for a bus coming the other
way, which could make an unscheduled stop and take them to the
'previous' bus stop. At which, buses behind the broken down one can
'break out' to the existing road system and divert along those to
overtake the broken down one.
It wouldn't even require special ticketing, as all they are offering at
the moment are unlimited day tickets.
But how well this works in practice we'll have to see. I don't foresee
people being trapped for the "standard three hours" when trains break
down, though.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
<d1ec160f-3d82-48ad...@m24g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, at
03:10:42 on Sun, 19 Jun 2011, embers25 <ember...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>Next question - if there is a breakdown can people get off and
>> walk, or are they going to be waiting hours, I wonder?
>
>makes national news! Even if they can divert off via a long diversion
>what happens to the stops they miss and how will people know where to
>now wait?
I don't think there are any stops which are very far removed from the
normal road system (by more than a hundred yards). If they were, where
would the passengers for buses stopping there be coming from?
>Also if 1 does get stuck behind the broken down one thats
>2 buses stranded and a massive potential reduction in frequency while
>the repairs are done.
As there's only one bus every 10 minutes at the moment, the potential
for a huge traffic jam is limited. Especially if they manage to get the
news out promptly that one has broken down.
>Also even if pax can get off (which health and safety probably won't
>allow)
There's a service/foot/cycle path right alongside, so no problems there.
>they'll have a long walk to the next
>stop where the diverted buses may actually be able to reach)
They could send a minibus down the service path, but I think catching a
bus going the other way is the simplest.
>Surely someone at the Council must have considered such scenarios and a
>clever solution is ready?!
I don't think there's anything very clever involved. Although one day
they'll have a breakdown that stops the buses both ways (for example if
one catches fire, or derails onto the oncoming track). Which will be
more difficult to work round.
--
Roland Perry
tim....
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:X2RcfVEWse$NF...@perry.co.uk...
> In message <965ski...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:07:41 on Sun, 19 Jun
> 2011, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> I see you are responding to Mr Perry. In previous correspondence with
>>> me, it is clear that he thinks "late" is in the region of 2100.
>>
>>I'm sure that Rowland thinks like everyone else that "late" really means
>>after 11pm.
>
> Of course. Tolley is referring to an old feud over the timing of off-peak
> intercity trains, not local buses.
>
>>But the reality is in many rural areas buses never ever provide that and
>>having a "late" bus means that there is one after 18:30.
>
> If TPTB thought the area served by the misguided bus was truly rural, I
> doubt they would have been able to get agreement to sink �150m (or
> whatever) into building it. With that level of investment it deserves to
> have buses running later into the evening, or people will still use their
> cars.
>
> Villages just as small as those served by the MGB, in the Nottingham
> hinterland, typically get a bus service until late in the evening.
But are they commercially run or subsidised?
>
> http://www.trentbarton.co.uk/servicePdfs/cotgrave-connection.pdf
>
> (Last bus 11.20pm except Fri/Sat when it's 01.20am; yes even Sundays)
>
>>Running buses "commercially" at this time is not viable and councils don't
>>think that subsidising "late night revellers" is not a good use of their
>>limited transport resources when the alternative demand for that resource
>>is
>>"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. Round my way, a normal
Sunday service is 4 buses total (per route) within that period (and nothing
outside it)
Clive D. W. Feather
>Except for the stops within the town, all of the stops are at the point
>where the "track" crosses the main road or inside the P&R area.
Can a bus turn off at the Orchard Park East stop? I haven't looked.
The other one I'd query is Fen Drayton Lakes; I've not been there
either. [Checks] This appears to be along a "byway"; is it even
metalled? At best it's a long detour for the bus to and from Fen
Drayton.
Of course, the bus stops are mostly *after* the junction, so there would
be no alternative bus stop for people to wait at - they'd have to walk
into a random piece of road, some of which have no pavement.
Roland Perry
2011, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
> Villages just as small as those served by the MGB, in the Nottingham
> hinterland, typically get a bus service until late in the evening.
But are they commercially run or subsidised?
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.
>>>"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.
>Round my way, a normal Sunday service is 4 buses total (per route)
>within that period (and nothing outside it)
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.
[1] And not subsidised, the bus operators pay a premium.
--
Roland Perry
Tim Ward
>
> 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.
We have been told by the Tory county council that "buses are a luxury we
cannot afford".
Roland Perry
2011, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>> 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.
>
>We have been told by the Tory county council that "buses are a luxury we
>cannot afford".
They might be able to afford them if they hadn't overspent on the
busway! But is that an official line - now they've built it at vast
expense, we aren't going to get the High Quality service they promised
(frequency is as much a Hi Quality parameter as leather seats and wifi).
--
Roland Perry
Tim Ward
>
> (frequency is as much a Hi Quality parameter as leather seats and wifi).
IIRC "high quality" is *all* about frequency (and distance from your home),
it has nothing at all to say about leather seats or wifi.
Theo Markettos
> The other one I'd query is Fen Drayton Lakes; I've not been there
> either. [Checks] This appears to be along a "byway"; is it even
> metalled? At best it's a long detour for the bus to and from Fen
> Drayton.
I think it is, but I can't remember for sure. Most of the access to Fen
Drayton Lakes is either dirt roads or very badly potholed metalled roads, so
I'd say it isn't a feasible connection point. Missing the stop is one
option, but there's no means of telling passengers the service has been
cancelled, and no alternative means of transport for them.
Theo
Neil Williams
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.
Roland Perry
>> (frequency is as much a Hi Quality parameter as leather seats and wifi).
>
>IIRC "high quality" is *all* about frequency (and distance from your home),
>it has nothing at all to say about leather seats or wifi.
But I predict we'll be soon be seeing people say "this bus may be
running only once an hour, but look at the lovely leather seats and
wifi".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
22:37:01 on Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>It is common for early and late journeys on an otherwise commercial
>route to be tendered.
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.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
20 Jun 2011, Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
remarked:
>> The other one I'd query is Fen Drayton Lakes; I've not been there
>> either. [Checks] This appears to be along a "byway"; is it even
>> metalled? At best it's a long detour for the bus to and from Fen
>> Drayton.
>
>I think it is, but I can't remember for sure. Most of the access to Fen
>Drayton Lakes is either dirt roads or very badly potholed metalled roads,
The bus stops are adjacent to Holywell Fen Road, which goes to Fen
Drayton. Not the most wonderful road in the world, but adequate to run a
bus on as an emergency diversion.
And aren't you forgetting the service track. It's only a mile from St
Ives, you could send someone from the P&R on a quad bike in a few
minutes to co-ordinate what's going on.
>so I'd say it isn't a feasible connection point. Missing the stop is
>one option, but there's no means of telling passengers the service has
>been cancelled,
Surely the stops have a Passenger Information System - the sort which
says how many minutes to the next few buses? That display can show that
services are delayed or cancelled.
>and no alternative means of transport for them.
They could catch a bus going the other way, and then use whatever
road-running diversionary services have been laid on for circumstance
such as this (which will be via the A14 of course!) Remember the buses
*can* use normal roads too - one of the great advantages of buses over a
tram - or so we are told!
--
Roland Perry
Chris Tolley
> "Chris Tolley" <cj.t...@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote in message
> news:1peo32yrw2868$.1noizxi74j3j2$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/06/2011 19:22, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are at least a few late services on route B (e.g. last bus from
>>>>> Huntingdon at 2235,
>>>
>>> 2235? Ah, that's someone's idea of "late", is it?
>>
>> I see you are responding to Mr Perry. In previous correspondence with
>> me, it is clear that he thinks "late" is in the region of 2100.
>
> I'm sure that Rowland thinks like everyone else that "late" really means
> after 11pm.
I refer you to his thread "I've paid ukp73 to sit on the floor" from Nov
2009, whose title arises because he would rather sit on the floor than
get a train which arrives at his destination any later than 2130.
Of course, what Roland thinks, and what he writes here may not
necessarily be connected - indeed, one frequently suspects that they are
not.
--
.sig down for maintenance
Roland Perry
Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Chris Tolley <cj.t...@bogus.co.uk> remarked:
>> I'm sure that Rowland thinks like everyone else that "late" really means
>> after 11pm.
>
>I refer you to his thread "I've paid ukp73 to sit on the floor" from Nov
>2009, whose title arises because he would rather sit on the floor than
>get a train which arrives at his destination any later than 2130.
Yes, and I referred to that yesterday - do keep up!
But there's no connection between a thread where I was complaining about
late arrival home on an Intercity train as part of a commute, and
remarks WHICH I DID NOT MAKE about late running of local buses for
revellers.
But keep digging if you like, it's fun to watch.
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
> 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.
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?
Neil
tim....
"Theo Markettos" <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Jay*Xr...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
Are the stations not equipped with PIS?
tim
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 20, 8:33=A0am, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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.
Nope. That's what the County said to the hoi polloi when trying to
sell the scheme, and IS true after the oh-so-carefully-redacted
exclusitivity period of 5 years has passed. Until then, it's
StageRoach and Whippet (and Whippet, of course), and the latter
dare not compete with the former.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
tim....
> In message <966c3i...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:31:43 on Sun, 19 Jun
> 2011, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> Villages just as small as those served by the MGB, in the Nottingham
>> hinterland, typically get a bus service until late in the evening.
>
> But are they commercially run or subsidised?
>
> 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.
But that's a critical point.
Down south, in rural (and semi rural) areas it is next to impossible for a
bus company to run late evening services without subsidy.
Complaining that they don't subsidise these buses, by comparison with an
area where they don't need to, is not reasonable.
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.
>>>>"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?
I thought that hospitals had done away with rigid visiting sessions.
Once again, subsidised buses are provided where they most useful. The
motivation for subsidising them may be to allow journeys such as the ones I
have indicated, but they also have to be provided at times that bring in the
most additional revenue, and that time is during shopping hours.
>
> >Round my way, a normal Sunday service is 4 buses total (per route)
> >within that period (and nothing outside it)
>
> 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"
> [1] And not subsidised, the bus operators pay a premium.
Are they?
tim
tim....
"Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:almarsoft.8928...@news.individual.net...
> 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
Jonathan Amery
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
Neil Williams
> StageRoach and Whippet (and Whippet, of course)
What's with the double-Whippet that keeps being posted?
Neil
Neil Williams
> 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.
Neil
Jon Warbrick
Neil Williams <pace...@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.
Jon.
--
Jon Warbrick
Neil Williams
> [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.
Neil
tim....
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It's usual for the companies to indicate this on their timetable leaflets.
tim
David Thornhill
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).
David
Lotty Gladstone
> 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.
Lotty.
Jamie Thompson
> "Neil Williams" <pacer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
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. ;)
Alan Quick
"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.
Alan Quick
Roland Perry
<b17a0c31-5294-487d...@u19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, at
03:32:02 on Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@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
Roland Perry
2011, tim.... <tims_n...@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
Theo Markettos
> 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...
Theo
Roland Perry
20 Jun 2011, Theo Markettos <theom...@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
Neil Williams
> 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?
Neil
Roland Perry
s.com>, at 07:33:54 on Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Neil Williams
<pace...@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.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/cambridgeshire/content/articles/2008/10/08/guided_
bus_menzies_qa_feature.shtml>
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
Neil Williams
> 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...
Neil
Graeme Wall
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>
Roland Perry
<5e47d1a5-cf67-40a1...@a7g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, at
08:05:06 on Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@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
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
> 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)
tim....
> In message <968nnp...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:02:28 on Mon, 20 Jun
> 2011, tim.... <tims_n...@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.
Mark Goodge
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.
>
> Stagecoach, Stagecoach, Whippet, and Whippet;
Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub?
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Roland Perry
2011, tim.... <tims_n...@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
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <969gpm...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:10:07 on Mon, 20 Jun
>2011, tim.... <tims_n...@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.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Tim Ward
news:itavv6dlta37h44nc...@4ax.com...
>
> If Cambridgeshire CC are so determined to avoid spending money on
> anything that anybody might conceivably benefit from, why don't they
> just wind themselves up?
Some of us would like to abolish the county, but we don't hold out much hope
of them abolishing themselves I'm afraid,
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Alan Quick
The predictions are by Atkins.
The basis is the AM Monday to Friday peak.
When Northstowe was finished the am peak patronage in both directions
was forecast at 3400 with a demand across the day of 20300.
It should be noted that all demand quoted is derived from the am peak
data and a "frig" factor applied.
I do not know how your frequency of every 3 minutes is derived as the
quoted bus capacity was assumed to be 80, a 3 hour AM peak and
passengers arriving at a consistent rate. This equates to about an every
5 minutes frequency.
You however may have some more realistic data.
It should be noted that the am peak demand is assumed to drop when the
A14 has been improved.
Annual maintenance costs of the guideway, park and ride sites and
information systems are quoted at �0.43 million at 2002 prices.
I am not clear how realistic this figures is when compared to the �0.9
million cost to the County of the existing Park and Ride sites after the
income from Stagecoach has been netted off.
Alan Quick
Theo Markettos
> On 20/06/2011 15:10, Roland Perry wrote:
> > In message <Iay*2s...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 15:02:02 on Mon,
> > 20 Jun 2011, Theo Markettos <theom...@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).
>
> The predictions are by Atkins.
The County's are, but Stagecoach will be doing their own, based on
experience of running bus services, bus services on the existing route, and
their private data on how much traffic you need to make one of their buses
pay. Stagecoach's figures are likely to be much closer to economic reality
than the County's (anyone remember the guided buses at the TWA inquiry that
would brake at 9.8 m/s/s?).
Clearly Stagecoach can't make it pay outside the Mon-Sat daytime (without
Northstowe anyway), so they've planned their timetable accordingly. Which
isn't going to help generate traffic.
Theo
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Warbrick) wrote:
Jon's sense of humour may be confusing some readers. Huntington and
District were in fact bought out by Stagecoach.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Jonathan Amery
>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.
Can we pull it up and build a railw^Wmonorail?
--
Jonathan Amery. There in the garden of tears
##### My heavy load he chose to bear;
#######__o His heart with sorrow was torn,
#######'/ 'Yet not my will but yours,' he said. - Graham Kendrick
Roland Perry
22:18:57 on Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Alan Quick <quic...@yahoo.com> 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).
>
>The predictions are by Atkins.
And accepted by the public enquiry, and trotted out by the county ever
since.
>The basis is the AM Monday to Friday peak.
>When Northstowe was finished
They haven't started it yet, of course.
>the am peak patronage in both directions was forecast at 3400 with a
>demand across the day of 20300.
How much of that remaining demand of 16900 is off-peak generated by
Northstowe, and how much is peak from other places and the P&R? Or does
the use of the "frig factor" conveniently avoid anyone having to
estimate those?
The pair of P&R have only 850 parking places, and if every single one of
those is a car off the A14 it's not going to make much dent (the road
has around 100k vehicles a day). Let alone keep the buses full all day.
>It should be noted that all demand quoted is derived from the am peak
>data and a "frig" factor applied.
Is there an industry standard figure for the ratio of
non-economically-active residents who take a bus during the day, versus
commuters who use it in the peaks?
>I do not know how your frequency of every 3 minutes is derived as the
>quoted bus capacity was assumed to be 80, a 3 hour AM peak and
>passengers arriving at a consistent rate. This equates to about an
>every 5 minutes frequency.
The statement of case waxes lyrically
"These levels of service provision will provide a step change in
public transport provision in the corridor and will constitute
the first real "turn up and go" service, where even at the
lowest frequencies passengers will have an average wait of only
five minutes for a service on the guideway".
That's odd, it's only hourly in the evening, and a ten minute wait
during the day. This is precisely why some of us think it's been a tad
oversold.
It also says:
"It is intended that services will operate from 06.00hrs to
24.00hrs seven days a week. This will provide a much higher
level of accessibility and service levels than currently
available."
The Sunday service is 9-5 once an hour, on only part of the route, as is
the service after 7.30pm the other days.
And the time from Huntingdon to Cambridge was predicted to be 44 minutes
(it's actually 76 minutes from Huntingdon bus station, 81 minutes from
the railway station, and the stop at Hinchinbrooke Hospital has got lost
somewhere along the way).
>You however may have some more realistic data.
The original Statement of Case said that by 2016 there would be 13/20
buses in each direction in the peak, in scenarios of low/medium growth
of demand for public transport.
As we now discover that half the buses are single deckers (to provide a
through service to the south) the average capacity is less than 80, and
the service frequency is "flat" at six per hour Stagecoach (plus one
Whippet). The flatness makes some operational sense, as where would
extra peak-hour buses come from? Three hours for a peak flow seems very
long - I wonder if there's really that much flexitime being worked?
>It should be noted that the am peak demand is assumed to drop when the
>A14 has been improved.
They've cancelled that improvement, so demand may not fall. On the other
hand, I drove from the A14 to the Longstanton P&R the other day (getting
off at the Bar Hill exit) and it feels like it takes forever - three
miles along a windy road with numerous roundabouts. Three miles south
from Bar Hill on the A14 is where the Girton Road meets Huntingdon Rd...
which feels a lot closer to Cambridge central than the edge of
Willingham does. And aren't most of the A14 problems over by the time
you've got to Bar Hill?
>Annual maintenance costs of the guideway, park and ride sites and
>information systems are quoted at �0.43 million at 2002 prices.
Does that include the staff (who I gather the County have been employing
for the last two years despite no buses running?)
>I am not clear how realistic this figures is when compared to the �0.9
>million cost to the County of the existing Park and Ride sites after
>the income from Stagecoach has been netted off.
It sounds OK for just the P&R sites, but the guideway itself is a whole
different kettle of worms.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
21 Jun 2011, Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
remarked:
>Clearly Stagecoach can't make it pay outside the Mon-Sat daytime (without
>Northstowe anyway), so they've planned their timetable accordingly.
With lip service to the "up until midnight" minimum service the County
wanted, except they've skipped Sundays of course.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk considered Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:49:49
> Stagecoach :)
Sounds like a very dodgy firm of solicitors...
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
> Rupert Moss-Eccardt<r.moss-...@computer.org> considered Mon, 20
> anything that anybody might conceivably benefit from, why don't they
> just wind themselves up?
The view is that buses are a "luxury we can't afford".
Being the thoughtless gits they are, the administration have taken a
very simplistic set of sums about recorded patronage.
Those with more capacity for reasoning know that the ridership figures
provided by the operators is not particularly reliable (e.g. standing
room only on a bus with zero recorded users) and, more importantly, the
value of a subsidised bus is more than the individual trip. For example
someone doesn't buy a car as they have adjusted their life around the
bus service they have (and soon won't). The value of the trip may well
be more than its cost - a vulnerable adult can travel and socialise
whereas without the bus will be trapped at home and will, in due course,
need much more expensive care.
Neil Williams
wrote:
> Those with more capacity for reasoning know that the ridership figures
> provided by the operators is not particularly reliable (e.g. standing
> room only on a bus with zero recorded users) and, more importantly, the
> value of a subsidised bus is more than the individual trip.
As I've said before, an evening bus service that usually carries
precisely no passengers may actually be profitable.
I wouldn't even consider commuting to work on a bus service where the
last bus depended on me leaving work precisely on time. But I would
if there were a few evening buses, even if most of the time I wouldn't
use them.
Bus companies, however, seem to have a rather odd way of looking at
profitability by journey only, and won't consider the marginal stuff
or a service as a whole.
Neil
ian batten
> Cambridge to St. Ives (Bus Station) via busway = 36 minutes.
> Cambridge to St. Ives (Bus Station), service 55 via normal roads = 36
> minutes.
> So how much have they spent to reduce the journey time by a magnificent
> zero minutes ?
And in one handy lesson, you have "why public transport planners need
adult supervision" and "why local authority budgets are bloated and
can be cut with no obvious harm". Guided busways are beyond
comprehension: they have absolutely no business, safety, economic,
environmental, capacity or congestion benefit. They're just a jolly
for some particularly stupid provincial councils to spend money they
can afford to waste on projects that are completely unnecessary.
Cambridge should have its rate support grant cut by the complete
project costs for this folly: they clearly have money to waste, and
there's no point in the rest of the country underwriting it.
Peter Masson
"ian batten" <i.g.b...@batten.eu.org> wrote
>Guided busways are beyond
>comprehension: they have absolutely no business, safety, economic,
>environmental, capacity or congestion benefit. They're just a jolly
>for some particularly stupid provincial councils to spend money they
>can afford to waste on projects that are completely unnecessary.
>Cambridge should have its rate support grant cut by the complete
>project costs for this folly: they clearly have money to waste, and
>there's no point in the rest of the country underwriting it.
Indeed. The one superficially attractive argument for guided busways is the
ability to convert a disused railway into a busway, so buses can, at the
ends of the busway, penetrate city centres and housing estates, even if the
formation is too narrow for a conventional road. However, problems of width
will only apply through some bridges. The Cambridge misguided bus would have
been up and running, at lower cost, years ago if the busway had been
constructed as a conventional road, with, if necessary, traffic light
control through narrow bridge holes. With a bus only every 5 - 10 minutes
that would not be a problem.
The Dartford and Gravesend Fastrack busways have been constructed as
conventional roads and bus lanes, though restricted to Fastrack buses, and
seems to be a complete success, with modal shifts from private car to public
transport comparable with the achievements of (Croydon) Tramlink.
Peter
Roland Perry
<b69f6765-9f03-413e...@l6g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, at
02:18:31 on Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>As I've said before, an evening bus service that usually carries
>precisely no passengers may actually be profitable.
>
>I wouldn't even consider commuting to work on a bus service where the
>last bus depended on me leaving work precisely on time. But I would
>if there were a few evening buses, even if most of the time I wouldn't
>use them.
Similarly I won't normally[1] fly on business to a destination with less
than one flight a day. Although I have a very good record of not missing
flights, or having a delayed departure, it's not practical to be
'trapped' somewhere unless there's a *very* good excuse (like the ash
cloud or other weather related phenomena).
[1] I did, a few times, but only because the contract at the other end
was with a hotel and no formal meetings, and overstaying wasn't a
problem; also there was only one airline serving the airport.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
<59dafd62-1a3a-4952...@s9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at
02:30:23 on Tue, 21 Jun 2011, ian batten <i.g.b...@batten.eu.org>
remarked:
>Cambridge should have its rate support grant cut by the complete
>project costs for this folly: they clearly have money to waste, and
>there's no point in the rest of the country underwriting it.
Except they were encouraged to do (and 80% funded, on the original
budget) it by the (then Labour) government as a sort of "prototype" for
tram-lite services elsewhere. It was awfully trendy too, shiny new
public transport for a shiny new eco-town (which turned out to be both
non-eco and a non-starter so far).
At least it's beginning to establish some sort of track record (no pun
intended) which is better than Cambridge pointing at Luton and saying
"they are planning one, so it must be OK", with Luton's justification
being that Cambridge is doing one too.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Peter Masson <peter....@privacy.com> remarked:
>The one superficially attractive argument for guided busways is the
>ability to convert a disused railway into a busway, so buses can, at
>the ends of the busway, penetrate city centres and housing estates,
>even if the formation is too narrow for a conventional road. However,
>problems of width will only apply through some bridges. The Cambridge
>misguided bus would have been up and running, at lower cost, years ago
>if the busway had been constructed as a conventional road, with, if
>necessary, traffic light control through narrow bridge holes. With a
>bus only every 5 - 10 minutes that would not be a problem.
Not quite a conventional road, because there are also embankments which
are not wide enough for that. But maybe a restricted-to-buses special
road of some kind. The southern section has a narrow cutting which I
think is only going to allow single alternate working, and that's after
considerable work on one of the overbridges near the station.
--
Roland Perry
bob
> On Jun 18, 7:47 pm, Bevan Price <bevanprice...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Cambridge to St. Ives (Bus Station) via busway = 36 minutes.
> > Cambridge to St. Ives (Bus Station), service 55 via normal roads = 36
> > minutes.
> > So how much have they spent to reduce the journey time by a magnificent
> > zero minutes ?
>
> And in one handy lesson, you have "why public transport planners need
> adult supervision" and "why local authority budgets are bloated and
> can be cut with no obvious harm". Guided busways are beyond
> comprehension: they have absolutely no business, safety, economic,
> environmental, capacity or congestion benefit. They're just a jolly
> for some particularly stupid provincial councils to spend money they
> can afford to waste on projects that are completely unnecessary.
The Cambridge-Huntingdon Multi Modal Study found that there was a need
for "high quality" public transport on this coridor, and at about that
time central government were casting about for a test scheme for the
guided bus technology, with the aim of seing whether it would prove to
be an effective but cheap alternative to trams. Basically central
government offered Cambs county council a big pile of money and told
them "Use this to build a busway on that route. If you don't built a
guided bus, you don't get the money" (inspiring the famous "ham
sandwich" analogy). And then they said that A14 widening would not
happen without the guided bus. And then they said Northstowe could
not happen without the guided bus. It's not really a case of the
county wanting it as one of the county wanting all the other schemes
that would not be allowed to happen without the guided bus.
> Cambridge should have its rate support grant cut by the complete
> project costs for this folly: they clearly have money to waste, and
> there's no point in the rest of the country underwriting it.
Indeed, it is a case that the county council should have seen sense
and told central government where to shove their £80m, the A14
widening and Northstowe. But they really wanted to widen the A14 and
really needed some land to be released to build new housing on, so
accepted the guided bus in order to achieve those other aims. It was
probably the wrong choice, as the bursting housing bubble has killed
Northstowe (I don't know what the current A14 status is), but they
weren't to know that at the time.
Robin
Alan Quick
>
>> the am peak patronage in both directions was forecast at 3400 with a
>> demand across the day of 20300.
>
> How much of that remaining demand of 16900 is off-peak generated by
> Northstowe, and how much is peak from other places and the P&R? Or does
> the use of the "frig factor" conveniently avoid anyone having to
> estimate those?
The peak demand from Northstowe was 22% of the total patronage.
The peak demand from the Northern Fringe (Orchard Park) was 28% of the
patronage.
The "frig factor" as you say means that the am peak percentages apply
across the day.
The Northern Fringe bus passengers I suspect use the guideway for less
than a mile.
It also should be noted that the "frig factor" applies to all stops
along the route and Atkins admitted that based on P&R data the number of
off peak passengers from the Northern Fringe could be 50% higher.
The implication is that the number of off peak passengers from further
out could be less than that predicted.
>
> The pair of P&R have only 850 parking places, and if every single one of
> those is a car off the A14 it's not going to make much dent (the road
> has around 100k vehicles a day). Let alone keep the buses full all day.
>
>> It should be noted that all demand quoted is derived from the am peak
>> data and a "frig" factor applied.
>
> Is there an industry standard figure for the ratio of
> non-economically-active residents who take a bus during the day, versus
> commuters who use it in the peaks?
Not that I know of. I believe an exercise to check the "frig factor" was
undertaken some time later.
The Crawley Fastway system forecasts were quoted.The following makes
interesting reading > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawley_Fastway
> As we now discover that half the buses are single deckers (to provide a
> through service to the south) the average capacity is less than 80, and
> the service frequency is "flat" at six per hour Stagecoach (plus one
> Whippet). The flatness makes some operational sense, as where would
> extra peak-hour buses come from? Three hours for a peak flow seems very
> long - I wonder if there's really that much flexitime being worked?
This was discussed and the County Council had to deny that bendy buses
would be required. (Capacity 42 seated 148 standing)
The roundabouts at the Station end of the Southern section have
subsequently been enlarged.
Alan Quick
>
Theo Markettos
> Indeed, it is a case that the county council should have seen sense
> and told central government where to shove their £80m, the A14
> widening and Northstowe. But they really wanted to widen the A14 and
> really needed some land to be released to build new housing on, so
> accepted the guided bus in order to achieve those other aims. It was
> probably the wrong choice, as the bursting housing bubble has killed
> Northstowe (I don't know what the current A14 status is), but they
> weren't to know that at the time.
The A14 upgrade has been cancelled, as Hammond didn't want to spend 1.2
billion quid on it, and decided to look again at unspecified 'safety
improvements'. Which essentially means back to the drawing board.
Theo
Roland Perry
13:58:25 on Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Alan Quick <quic...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>> the am peak patronage in both directions was forecast at 3400 with a
>>> demand across the day of 20300.
>>
>> How much of that remaining demand of 16900 is off-peak generated by
>> Northstowe, and how much is peak from other places and the P&R? Or does
>> the use of the "frig factor" conveniently avoid anyone having to
>> estimate those?
>
>The peak demand from Northstowe was 22% of the total patronage.
>The peak demand from the Northern Fringe (Orchard Park) was 28% of the
>patronage.
These are very odd figures. Orchard Park doesn't look big enough to
provide more patrons than 9500 houses in Northstowe. I know the Orchard
Park development is also stalled (last time I was there it looked like a
ghost town) but is it really going to have that many potential
passengers?
>The "frig factor" as you say means that the am peak percentages apply
>across the day.
>
>The Northern Fringe bus passengers I suspect use the guideway for less
>than a mile.
As long as they all pay the same fare as Oakington residents, I doubt
Stagecoach minds.
>> As we now discover that half the buses are single deckers (to provide a
>> through service to the south) the average capacity is less than 80, and
>> the service frequency is "flat" at six per hour Stagecoach (plus one
>> Whippet). The flatness makes some operational sense, as where would
>> extra peak-hour buses come from? Three hours for a peak flow seems very
>> long - I wonder if there's really that much flexitime being worked?
>
>This was discussed and the County Council had to deny that bendy buses
>would be required. (Capacity 42 seated 148 standing)
>The roundabouts at the Station end of the Southern section have
>subsequently been enlarged.
The original publicity material showed a futuristic faux-tram bendy-bus.
One of a multitude of things which turned out to be vapourware.
It might have been interesting to ask how they expected the 148 standees
to use the wifi with their laptops.
--
Roland Perry
Alan Quick
>> The predictions are by Atkins.
>
> The County's are, but Stagecoach will be doing their own, based on
> experience of running bus services, bus services on the existing route, and
> their private data on how much traffic you need to make one of their buses
> pay. Stagecoach's figures are likely to be much closer to economic reality
> than the County's (anyone remember the guided buses at the TWA inquiry that
> would brake at 9.8 m/s/s?).
>
> Clearly Stagecoach can't make it pay outside the Mon-Sat daytime (without
> Northstowe anyway), so they've planned their timetable accordingly. Which
> isn't going to help generate traffic.
>
riders, megariders etc
Stagecoach will provide un-subsidised early morning journeys with low
passenger numbers as they can collect the fares.
The County council subsidise evening services where a good percentage of
passengers are travelling on pre purchased tickets.
Stagecoach however seem not to appreciate subsidised evening services
being run by operators who do not accept their return tickets and often
appear to win the next tender round.
Alan Quick
Roland Perry
14:51:31 on Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Alan Quick <quic...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>The County council subsidise evening services where a good percentage
>of passengers are travelling on pre purchased tickets.
But the County are withdrawing all their subsidies (and didn't plan to
subsidise the MGB anyway, unless you count the waiving of the track
access fee in the evening a subsidy).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
<4509ec43-2152-445e...@u28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, at
05:44:36 on Tue, 21 Jun 2011, bob <rcp...@gmail.com> remarked:
>Indeed, it is a case that the county council should have seen sense
>and told central government where to shove their �80m, the A14
>widening and Northstowe. But they really wanted to widen the A14 and
>really needed some land to be released to build new housing on
But only because the government demanded they build more homes. But I
suppose the councillors may have wanted the homes in the relative
wasteland which is Northstowe, rather than sandwiched (ham or otherwise)
between their leafy villas in the vicinity of Foxton and Melbourn.
>, so accepted the guided bus in order to achieve those other aims. It
>was probably the wrong choice, as the bursting housing bubble has
>killed Northstowe (I don't know what the current A14 status is)
Postponed indefinitely in the spending cuts.
>, but they weren't to know that at the time.
For a short period, Northstowe was also going to be the UK's "model
eco-town".
--
Roland Perry