Sheffield Retail Quarter (ex-"Sevenstone") MEGATHREAD

[WallBuilder]

Interesting question, I suppose only the operators could answer you that, but why are they running every 4 minutes? Surely the service doesn't warrant service saturation to that degree.

 

That question can only be answered by the bus company but I assume there's enough demand for it along the route as i some how doubt that a bus company would run buses that make a financial loss. The thing that always confuses me is why the two biggest bus companies are allowed to compete on the same routes altering their times to try and grab trade off the other. London is an exception as they seem to be able to enforce restrictions on the bus companies doing things like this.

[larven]

I guess it depends on what the demand for that service is along the entire length of its route. It may run relatively empty from Crystal Peaks but could pick up substantial numbers of passengers along the way, which may warrant the service running every four minutes.

[dosxuk]

Okay, take a look at Crystal Peaks bus station, the 120 leaves every 4 minutes for Fulwood, many of them running empty, A total waste of resources and money and totally unnecessary

 

I live in the city centre, just by the route of the 120. Fifteen minutes of viewing just netted me 4 120's - all of them about half full.

 

Also, IIRC, there are no subsidies for buses on any routes where more than one operator runs - these are run solely on a commercial basis with no funding from the tax payer. So these buses are not

empty buses clogging the roads because they can afford to run round empty because they are heavily subsidized .

 

 

London is an exception as they seem to be able to enforce restrictions on the bus companies doing things like this.

 

London buses are run completely differently to up here - the bus companies are contracted to run services - the fares go directly to TfL, not the operators. The bus companies can make more money by meeting / beating targets set out in their contracts, not by picking up more passengers / cutting services.

[WallBuilder]

London buses are run completely differently to up here - the bus companies are contracted to run services - the fares go directly to TfL, not the operators. The bus companies can make more money by meeting / beating targets set out in their contracts, not by picking up more passengers / cutting services.

 

Does this way of doing thing improve bus services or not was what i was interested in, why should London have this system and only London, unless of course some-one can inform me differently.

[dosxuk]

Does this way of doing thing improve bus services or not was what i was interested in, why should London have this system and only London, unless of course some-one can inform me differently.

 

I think with the range of services and existing congestion in London, running a free-for-all private bus service wouldn't work there. It probably would work better across the country, and especially in rail, but it doesn't match up with the Tory ideal of selling off everything the country owns, and since it's a national government decision, nothing that SCC can do about it.

 

It would probably annoy Penistone999 even more, since every bus on the road is being paid to be there, regardless of it's custom, whereas up here the majority are run commercially and will be pulled if there isn't enough passengers.

[Planner1]

London buses are run completely differently to up here - the bus companies are contracted to run services - the fares go directly to TfL, not the operators. The bus companies can make more money by meeting / beating targets set out in their contracts, not by picking up more passengers / cutting services.

 

Does this way of doing thing improve bus services or not was what i was interested in, why should London have this system and only London, unless of course some-one can inform me differently.

Other areas can now adopt franchising of bus services, it's called Quality Contracts.

 

SYPTE decided not to go down that route, as the bus operators would probably mount a legal challenge (the legislation says you are only supposed to go for franchising if every other way of doing things has failed to deliver the required results) and there are significant financial risks for the SY loal authorities (ie when you tender the contracts, the costs come back higher than you expected and you have to cut services )

 

SYPTE decided to go for a voluntary partnership, which gives them most of the benefits of franchising, but without the risks.

 

West Yorks PTE have decided to go for franchising, so it will be interesting to see how they get on.

[andygardener]

Because if there were no public transport roads would soon be gridlocked with cars and people who don't drive wouldn't be bale to get about.

 

Lots of other things are subsidised - education, agriculture, industry, the BBC, science, the military, the royals.... in fact just about every social institution. It's the way society hangs together thanks to government intervention. Of course people with relatively small brains and relatively large egos who can't see beyond their own little world may not know that.

 

Or we could just treat buses like what they are, big inflexible smelly taxis. So if you don't have a car then get one of these and pay the comercial price to use it. Why do they need subsidising?

[smiggs]

Or we could just treat buses like what they are, big inflexible smelly taxis. So if you don't have a car then get one of these and pay the comercial price to use it. Why do they need subsidising?

 

to ensure people who can't afford a car can afford to use the bus to get to work and therefore pay taxes instead of benefits

 

to encourage people with cars to use the bus instead so the council don't have to spend as much on roads and so that people who have no option but to drive can park

[andygardener]

to ensure people who can't afford a car can afford to use the bus to get to work and therefore pay taxes instead of benefits

 

to encourage people with cars to use the bus instead so the council don't have to spend as much on roads and so that people who have no option but to drive can park

 

It think planner1 himself put forward a road damage assessment that made buses massively per passenger more damaging than cars by a factor of thousands. Something to do with axel weight.

 

So lets not pretend its cars damaging the roads when its buses.

[Penistone999]

to ensure people who can't afford a car can afford to use the bus to get to work and therefore pay taxes instead of benefits

 

to encourage people with cars to use the bus instead so the council don't have to spend as much on roads and so that people who have no option but to drive can park

 

Why would people with cars want to use the bus instead ? Surely people drive because it gets you where you want to go , when you want to go there and most importantly the car takes you door to door ,something the old public transport never will.